Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

International Development Association

4. Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will make a statement on her latest consultations with other member States of the International Development Association concerning the Association's next financial replenishment.

The Minister of Overseas Development(Mrs. Judith Hart): As part of the continuing process of consultation between member States, the International Development Association has called a further meeting of representatives of the Part I member countries in Vienna early next week, at the invitation of the Austrian Government. I hope that at this meeting it will be possible to make further progress towards a decision on the size and form of the third replenishment.

Mr. Judd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread respect throughout the international community for the forthright lead which she has given in this matter? Will she remind our partners in I.D.A. that the delay in coming to conclusions on the last replenishment seriously disrupts the ongoing programme of the organisation, and this should in future be avoided at all costs?

Mrs. Hart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. We have certainly tried to give all the lead we could in this matter. I am hoping that a final decision may be reached by the middle of the year. We shall do our best to persuade our friends to join with us.

Aden and Zanzibar (Pensioners)

5. Mr. Allason: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she now proposes to pay the pensions of locally enlisted servants of the Aden and Zanzibar Governments whose pensions are in default.

14. Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether the arrangements made for the payment of pensions to public servants in Southern Yemen announced on 19th March will apply,mutatis mutandis, to similar pensioners who served in Zanzibar and who find themselves likewise without any pension owing to the action of the Zanzibar Government.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development (Mr. Ben Whitaker): In respect of the Aden pensioners I would refer the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) to the written reply my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharpies) on 19th March. Her Majesty's Government are prepared to make ex gratia loan advances equivalent to the amount of pensions to indigenous pensioners who were members of the civil administration and civil police. In respect of the Zanzibar pensioners our representations are still continuing. [Vol. 798, c. 208-9.]

Mr. Allason: Should not the Government take the same steps for Zanzibar that they have taken for Aden? Will the Minister explain why the operative date for Aden is 1st April, 1970, when some pensioners suffered hardship before that date?

Mr. Whitaker: The hon. Member will appreciate that arrangements have to be made to ensure that matters work out satisfactorily. He will be aware that there is a clear distinction between the situation in Zanzibar and in the South Yemen. Whereas no agreement was reached with the Southern Yemen Government, there was a contractual agreement established with Zanzibar on independence, and it is the Zanzibar Government who have defaulted.

Mr. Tilney: What hope is there of the Zanzibar Government coming to an


agreement with Her Majesty's Government, how many pensioners are likely to be affected, and will they be treated as individual cases?

Mr. Whitaker: The British High Commissioner in Dar-es-Salaam has made repeated representations, and more recently to the President of Zanzibar, about the non-payment of Zanzibar local pensions. While everybody sympathises with this situation, to derogate from it would be a standing incentive to others to abrogate their contractual obligations.

Mr. Braine: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that there are many people in this country who do not understand how British taxpayers' money can be made available to a Government that behaves so disgracefully towards its former public servants, whose only crime was that they faithfully served the Crown before independence?

Mr. Whitaker: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is a clear distinction between the situation in Yemen, where there was no agreement covering these pensioners, and the fact that when Zanzibar became independent a public officers' agreement was concluded and a pension safeguard written into the Constitution.

Botswana and Swaziland

8. Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what was the value of Great Britain's capital assistance, technical assistance and budgetary assistance to Botswana and Swaziland in 1969–70; what is the estimate for 1970–71; when she will terminate budgetary assistance; and whether she will make a statement.

Mrs. Hart: In 1969–70 our development aid, budgetary aid, and technical assistance to Botswana amounted in rounded figures to£ 6.1 million, and to Swaziland £3·5 million. The estimate for 1970–71 is, respectively, £ 4·6 million and £2·4 million. Budgetary aid to Swaziland ended in 1969–70 and in the case of Botswana is expected to finish at the end of 1971–72.

Mr. Judd: Will my right hon. Friend accept that we all cheer the ending of the need for budgetary assistance to these two territories, but, because of the general

political situation in that part of the world, there is widespread feeling on this side of the House that Botswana and Swaziland should continue to receive high priority in the Government's aid development programme?

Mrs. Hart: Yes, and I can assure my hon. Friend they will continue to do so. He will appreciate that the reduction in the level of our aid is a consequence of the increased revenue that both countries are receiving under their new Customs agreement with South Africa, but we fully intend to do whatever we can for both countries.

Official Aid and Financial Flows

9. Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will now give figures for both official aid and private flows during 1969 and an estimate of their percentage of gross national product.

Mrs. Hart: In the calendar year 1969 gross official aid was £210·8 million, and net financial flows counting towards the U.N.C.T.A.D. target were £178·7 million official and, provisionally, £ 210 million private, representing together 0·85 per cent. of g.n.p.

Mr. Prentice: Will my right hon. Friend break down the 0·85 per cent. g.n.p. into figures for private flows and Government aid? Will she tell the House whether Government aid in percentage of g.n.p. is still declining as it has been declining since 1964?

Mrs. Hart: Yes, the breakdown is as follows. Net official flows in 1968—that is not gross, but net—stood at 0·42 per cent. Despite the increase in the actual amount, in 1969 this became 0·39 per cent. Private flows, on the other hand, increased from 0·33 per cent. to 0·46 per cent. My right hon. Friend will fully recognise that the programme which I announced in November last year is designed precisely to reverse this trend.

Civil Servants and Overseas Representatives

10. Mr. Goodhart: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what plans she has for reducing the number of civil servants employed in her Department in the


United Kingdom; and what plans she has for increasing the number of representatives from the Minister of Overseas Development serving overseas.

Mrs. Hart: The answer to the first part of the Question is "None, Sir ". I am considering setting up additional development divisions overseas but am not in a position to make any statement at present.

Mr. Goodhart: Is the Minister aware that there are 25 civil servants serving in the United Kingdom in her Department for every representative of Her Majesty serving overseas, and that many experts think that the administration of the aid programme would be improved if this balance were shifted? Many of us think that the regional development centres do an excellent job in providing a link between the Ministry and individual recipients. Will the Minister say whether she is proposing to set up new centres?

Mrs. Hart: In answer to the last part of the supplementary Question, I cannot yet say, but I will do so as soon as I can; these matters are under consideration. I think that the hon. Gentleman may be a little confused in breaking down the total number of O.D.M. staff in Britain. This includes about 1,000 who are in our special units, for example, the Directorate of Overseas Service, the Tropical Products Institute and the other institutes which we finance and which are not directly concerned with administration of aid but are staffed by specialists, scientists, surveyors, and so on.

Mr. Tinn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who have seen the excellent work done in the Middle East by the Regional Development Commission at Beirut welcome the statement that she is considering setting up other offices, and we hope that she will soon come to a conclusion?

Mrs. Hart: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments on the Middle East. Had he visited the Caribbean Development Commission ha would have been even more reinforced in this view, and it is this which is leading me now to consider the establishment of further divisions.

Rhodesia (Commonwealth Development Corporation Loan)

11. Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what has been the loss of interest and capital on the £1 million loan given by the Commonwealth Development Corporation to Rhodesia for African urban housing; and if this loss of resources to the Corporation is being compensated by her Department.

Mr. Whitaker: Up to the end of 1969 the arrears totalled £237,500 and £200,000 respectively. No compensation is being paid.

Mr. Pavitt: Will my hon. Friend say whether there are any more considerable sums outstanding, even if no more compensation is being paid? Is this taken into account in the assessment of the figures? Is it not surprising that hon. Gentlemen opposite who continue to support the illegal regime never say anything about what it owes us?

Mr. Whitaker: I am entirely at one with my hon. Friend in admiration for the work that the C.D.C. is doing. In reply to the first part of his question, it has three investments in Rhodesia, but, as my hon. Friend will recognise, the responsibility for the default lies with the present temporary regime in Salisbury.

Mr. Braine: Is not this a most unsatisfactory situation? Since the C.D.C. is unable to reap any advantage from its investment of public money in Rhodesia because of the Government's policy, have any representations been made to the Treasury to the effect that this excellent instrument for overseas development should be recouped in some way?

Mr. Whitaker: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the C.D.C. is but one of a great number of private people and companies who are victims of the present unfortunate circumstances in Salisbury.

Kenya

12. Mr. Goodhart: asked the Minister of Overseas Development why she is increasing the amount of aid given to Kenya at a time when many residents of Kenya who hold British passports are subject to official economic discrimination.

Mrs. Hart: I am not increasing the amount of aid given to Kenya. I have


offered the Kenyan Government capital aid of £11·5 million which is expected to be drawn down over the next four years. This compares with £18 million for the four-year period 1966–70.

Mr. Goodhart: The amount of aid given to Kenya in 1970 on the capital side will be £7 million. As the decision to give such a high proportion of our bilateral aid to Kenya is clearly political, we must have tried to get some safeguards for the British passport holders and indeed the Asian community as a whole in Kenya.

Mrs. Hart: The hon. Gentleman is confusing the amount of aid drawn down in the next four years with the amount that remains to be drawn down of the £18 million agreed for the period 1966–70. That is the figure he is referring to.

Mr. Paget: May we take it that there is no objection to paying aid to racialist Governments?

Mrs. Hart: The aid I administer at the Ministry of Overseas Development is administered on developmental grounds. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting that in the administration of my aid programme I should change the criteria from developmental grounds to political grounds.

Mr. Braine: Is that not precisely what the Minister and her Government are doing in the case of Lesotho and Malta? Will she not take an early opportunity in the case of both those territories to give the House an idea of the Government's intentions? The impression now being given is that the Government are using aid as a political weapon.

Mrs. Hart: The hon. Gentleman will find that had one of his hon. Friends been in the House to ask a Question about Malta, the answer would have been totally in terms of developmental criteria, as I judge them at the Ministry. As for Lesotho, that is an issue concerned primarily with recognition.

Rhodesia (Contingency Plans)

15. Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Overseas Development what contingency planning exists to assist African development and general development in Rhodesia when normal relations have been restored.

Mrs. Hart: If normal relations could be restored on the basis of a return to legality in accordance with our principles, we would be ready to resume aid to Rhodesia according to the circumstances then prevailing.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Would the Minister reconsider that answer in the light of what she has just said to her hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget)? Is she not giving aid to many regimes of very doubtful legality? While the Government constantly assert their trusteeship for the Africans, are they not retarding their development by their policy of sanctions? Pending an outbreak of common sense, will they see what can be done to help the multi-racial University College in Salisbury and to go on helping it?

Mrs. Hart: On the last part of the supplementary question, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the primary responsibility for what happens in the U.C.R. in Salisbury lies with the Universities of Birmingham and London and that we as a Government have a tenuous connection with that university. The first part of the supplementary question should be directed to the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), who raised the question of Lesotho, since it concerns recognition of a legal or illegal Government. This arises in the case of Lesotho and also in connection with Rhodesia. I am not sure whether he is suggesting that the principles the Conservative Party would apply would permit both recognition and resumption of aid now.

Mr. Crawshaw: Would the Minister agree that one of the best forms of assistance to Rhodesia would be to give educational grants to those African students who have had their grants cut off by the Rhodesian Government and therefore their residential qualifications do not entitle them to get a grant from the Department of Education and Science? May I mention the case of Mr. Chideme from Liverpool who has been seeking to get into Liverpool University since last October?

Mrs. Hart: I am looking into that case. I am giving a great deal of help from the Ministry to students from Rhodesia in terms of their university education here. and I should like to seek to extend this


as far as possible compatible with all the requirements which have to be satisfied.

Tanzania

16. Mr. John Fraser: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will now make a detailed announcement about the resumption of aid to Tanzania.

Mrs. Hart: As a preliminary to normal detailed aid discussions, I have proposed to the Tanzania Government that a senior official from my Ministry should visit Tanzania for discussions. This suggestion has been welcomed by the Tanzania Government and I hope the visit will shortly take place.

Mr. Fraser: The answer is very welcome. Could my right hon. Friend say what level this senior civil servant will be, and will he discuss with the Tanzanian Government aid given to the housing programme which might have useful implications for other developing countries as well in the form of self-help?

Mrs. Hart: The level of the official—I will not name him—who will be going to Tanzania shortly is Deputy Secretary. I am certain that the matter my hon. Friend has mentioned will arise in the course of discussion to see how best we can assist with the Tanzanian development programme.

Mr. Braine: Will those discussions cover the pensions of former Zanzibar officials who are not covered by the public service agreement between Zanzibar and the United Kingdom?

Mrs. Hart: I do not think I have anything to add to what I said to my hon. Friend in answer to a previous Question. Undoubtedly there will be a whole range of discussions, but I hope that they will be concerned with how best Britain can again assist in Tanzania's development.

Caribbean

17. Mr. John Fraser: asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will pay an official visit to the Caribbean developing nations.

Mrs. Hart: I should certainly welcome the opportunity to visit the Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean, but I have no early plans for such a visit.

Mr. Fraser: In the absence of a visit, would my right hon. Friend take a careful look at how a combination of both private and official aid could be used to increase employment opportunities in these countries where there is a high rate of unemployment among the young, and would this not be to the mutual advantage of developing countries and enable this country to use the Caribbean as a springboard for the sale of manufactures to the rest of the Western hemisphere?

Mrs. Hart: One of the most useful contributions we are now about to make in the Caribbean generally in terms of developing countries of the Commonwealth is in the form of the new Caribbean Development Bank to whose funds Britain is contributing and in which we have taken a great initiative. This can be very helpful in the future in giving investment money for the creation of employment opportunities in the Caribbean.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Will the Minister consider the possibility of extending the development area concept which exists in the Caribbean similar to the one in the Middle East? Would she consider extending development area techniques outside these two areas to other areas in the world as recommended by the Estimates Committee so that we can have experts on the spot?

Mrs. Hart: I explained a little earlier that I have now under consideration the extension of this principal. I am considering setting up further development divisions one by one, but I am not yet in a position to make a detailed statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY

North Oxfordshire (Unemployment)

18. Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what is the total of unemployed in north Oxfordshire.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment and Productivity (Mr. Edmund Dell): At 13th April, 1970, the provisional number of persons registered as unemployed in the area covered


by the Banbury Employment Exchange was 529.

Mr. Marten: While realising that that was just about the national average, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that under the Conservatives it was 0·9 per cent. and not about 2·7 per cent., which it is now? What are the Government going to do about it?

Mr. Dell: The hon. Gentleman knows that redundancies in British Leyland last November and the rundown in the British Railways marshalling yard have affected the figures. However, the interesting fact in Banbury is the high number of unfilled vacancies notified to the Department, which is more than double what it was in April, 1963. This illustrates the difficulty of linking up unemployment with unfilled vacancies, which is a problem we are studying. As for what the Government are doing about the situation, the hon. Members knows that in respect of I.D.C.s, after development areas and intermediate areas, priority is given to overspill towns such as Banbury.

Bank Employees

19. Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will make a further statement about her discussions with bank employers regarding the National Board for Prices and Incomes latest report on terms of employment in the banks.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Harold Walker): I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 19th March. — [Vol. 798, c. 160.]

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is it not true that the Federation of Bank Employers has told the right hon. Lady and Mr. Jones to go boil an egg? Had he not better admit this, and is not the Federation absolutely right to have done so?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong, because my Department is now engaged in discussions with the banks.

Mr. Macdonald: Would the hon. Gentleman explain how these agreements reached between the banks and the National Union of Bank Employees are

referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes far more frequently than appears to be the case with agreements reached in other industries?

Mr. Walker: These agreements were referred in " line " with the requirement of the Government's prices and incomes policy for 1969.

Commission for Industry and Manpower (Chairman's Salary)

22. Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether the 16⅔ per cent. increase in the salary of the Chairman of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on his appointment to the Chairmanship of the Commission for Industry and Manpower is in accordance with the Government's prices and incomes policy and if she will refer it to the National Board for Prices and Incomes for consideration and report.

Mr. Harold Walker: No appointment has yet been made.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I meant there to be an element of intelligent anticipation about the Question. I recognise that the figure of 16⅔ per cent. mentioned in the Question might have to be adjusted to 25 per cent., but will the hon. Gentleman at least give an undertaking that when the increase in salary for this gentleman has been arranged it will be referred to the N.B.P.I., and if not, why not?

Mr. Walker: The question of an increase does not arise. The hon. Gentleman should have learned by now not to believe all he reads in the newspapers.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Would the hon. Gentleman say when it is proposed to make this appointment? Would he confirm that it will be Mr. Aubrey Jones?

Mr. Walker: No doubt my hon. Friend will be making an announcement very shortly.

Trades Union Congress (Discussions)

24. Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what further discussions she intends to have with the Trades Union Congress with a view to improving industrial relations.

Mr.Harold Walker: My Department is in regular and frequent consultation with the Trades Union Congress about serious industrial disputes.

Mr. Lewis: It does not seem to be very effective. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that today we hear that B.O.A.C. can no longer run the Jumbo jet because of difficulties in the Corporation? Is he aware that there is also the threat of a newspaper strike? Has he also heard that the A.E.U. is threatening to come out of the York agreement affecting negotiations between unions and employers? This is added to all the other difficulties, and is it not a fact that the trouble is that the T.U.C. as a fire extinguisher has not enough power?

Mr. Walker: It is time hon. Members opposite paid tribute to the T.U.C. and what it is doing and also recognised the dramatic change the T.U.C. accepted in its role last year. Strikes may be a new phenomenon so far as hon. Gentlemen are concerned, but I understand we have had them ever since the Industrial Revolution. As a matter of fact, as the Prime Minister made clear in this House nine days ago, the statistics for the last six years compare very favourably with the statistics for the preceding six years.

Mr. Tinn: Will my hon. Friend see whether anything can be done to give more publicity to the successes of the T.U.C.'? We hear a lot about strikes which take place, but nothing of those which are avoided by the hard and effective work being done by the T.U.C. under Vic Feather.

Mr. Walker: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when addressing the Scottish T.U.C. yesterday, drew attention to the fact that the T.U.C. had intervened in about 150 disputes with a large measure of success.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Could the hon. Gentleman say when the tribute of the Industrial Relations Bill is to be brought before the House?

Mr. Walker: The Industrial Relations Bill, which will bring about a major reform in industrial relations, will be before the House very shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT

25. Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Attorney-General whether he will give an assurance that every person against whom prima facie evidence exists of contravention of the Official Secrets Act will be prosecuted.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): No, Sir.

Mr. Lewis: How can the Attorney-General answer in such a way when he knows, as does the whole House, that there is an hon. Member of this House who has sent him evidence requesting prosecution—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows the sub judice rule. He cannot refer indirectly to any case which is now on trial.

Mr. Lewis: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, there is no case on at the moment affecting the right hon. Member to whom I am referring. I am referring to the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser). There is no case so far as he is concerned, so the matter cannot be sub judice. lie has sent evidence to the Attorney-General and has requested prosecution. When he has made such a request why has the Attorney-General not taken action? That case is not sub judice.

The Attorney-General: This is one of the matters which has already been referred to in proceedings which are taking place and it is eminently sub judice. At an appropriate moment it will give me great satisfaction to deal with the Questions that I am now prevented by the decencies and rules of the House from answering.

Oral Answers to Questions — OFFENSIVE PUBLICATIONS (CIRCULATION)

26. Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Attorney-General what further steps he is taking to curb the distribution of pornographic literature to members of the public who have not requested it.

30. Mr. Speed: asked the Attorney-General what further steps he proposes to


take to curtail the distribution of unsolicited obscene and pornographic literature through the post.

The Attorney-General: Prosecutions have been brought and will continue to be brought in all appropriate cases. The problem of offensive, unsolicited circulars which are not at present in breach of the law falls within the terms of reference of the Committee on Privacy announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that it is too late to wait for that committee because this muck is still being distributed unabated all over the country? Does he not think that it is time to look a this matter to try to decide on some further test of obscenity which will enable extra prosecutions to be brought?

The Attorney-General: I know the feeling that is strongly and properly felt about the distribution of offensive material of this kind. But the House should know that we are not inactive in this sphere. Last year Customs seizures of pornographic publications amounted in the case of books to 1,654,000 and in the case of magazines 925,000. There were 128 prosecutions in 1968 under the Obscene Publications Act. If comparison with earlier days is relevant, that is twice as many as in 1963.

Mr. Speed: Is the Attorney-General aware that in my constituency there is clear evidence that this filthy traffic is increasing and that it causes particular distress, because in many cases such material is being addressed either to young people or to persons who have died? The main problem appears to be not from traffic abroad but from publishers in this country. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take an urgent look again at this matter to try to stop the considerable distress that is being caused to many people?

The Attorney-General: We are taking this matter very seriously. Prosecutions are pending regarding the kind of material that is being distributed. Obviously, I cannot comment on those. We are not taking a complacent attitude. The police, Customs and the Post Office are being as energetic as possible in this sphere. The problem is the definition of what

is offensive for the purpose of prohibiting its distribution through the post when it is unsolicited.

Mr. Crawshaw: While appreciating my right hon. and learned Friend's efforts, may I ask whether he realises that at present such publications are being sent to people whose names appear on electoral registers, which now include many people of 18 years of age? Will the Attorney-General try to come to some conclusion on what is obscene, because many of the things which I receive I certainly consider obscene, and I believe that I am pretty broadminded?

The Attorney-General: This matter has been referred to the Committee on Privacy to consider whether there should be some definition of these offensive publications which could enable them to be caught by the criminal law. The present definition of obscenity, unfortunately, does not catch some of the circulars which cause the greatest offence.

Mr. Hogg: Whilst I realise the difficulty to which the Attorney-General refers and accept what he says about it, he will be aware of the " Ladies Directory " case? Will he consider the possibility of instituting proceedings for conspiracy to effect a debauchery of public morals?

The Attorney-General: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, that would be casting a very wide net indeed in the sphere of the criminal law. Conspiracy has been called the dragnet of the criminal law. But a conspiracy to debauch public morals—where would that begin and where, indeed, would it end?

Oral Answers to Questions — MAGISTRATES, WALES (PAYMENT OF FINE)

27. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Attorney-General if he has now collected the names of the magistrates who combined to pay a fine imposed by other magistrates in Wales; and what action is now being taken.

The Attorney-General: My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has made inquiries into the cases of two of the magistrates who contributed towards the payment of the fine, and whose identity


is known. They have explained that they made their contributions privately and with no intention of their identity being disclosed, and the Lord Chancellor has decided to take no further action.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Did these two gentlemen explain to the Lord Chancellor how it became widely known to the Press that a number of Welsh magistrates, as magistrates, had combined to nullify a fine imposed by another bench of Welsh magistrates?

The Attorney-General: One was, in fact, a lady; the other was a gentleman. They have revealed that their contributions were made in a private capacity without any intention of their identity being disclosed. In those circumstances the Lord Chancellor decided to take no action. Both my noble Friend and I have reiterated that no one is obliged to accept a judicial appointment, but that, if one does, one must accept it with all that it entails and ensure that one's conduct does not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Sir P. Rawlinson: Does the Attorney-General agree that this was a contribution made for a political purpose? The private character of a magistrate in such circumstances, when he contributes towards a fine imposed by another judicial officer, cannot be said to be private in that sense, but is a reflection of political views on a case in which there had been a judgment and a fine.

The Attorney-General: Neither the Lord Chancellor nor myself has expressed approval of what was done. I think that what has been said will probably discourage any repetition.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIMITATION ACT, 1963

28. Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Attorney-General if, following the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Lucy versus W. T. Henley's 1969, he will introduce early legislation to reform the Limitation Act, 1963, as it applies to personal injury claims, and in respect of the death of an injured person.

29. Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Attorney-General what plans he has to

amend and improve the Limitation Act, 1963.

32. Mr. Willey: asked the Attorney-General if he will amend the Limitation Act, 1963, so as to lift the restrictions on claims for damages in respect of pneumoconiosis; and if he will make a statement.

33. Mr. Woof: asked the Attorney-General if he will introduce legislation to secure the extension of the restrictive provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, to safeguard all those who need to claim under the present provisions of that Act.

34. Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Attorney-General if he will introduce in the present Session of Parliament amending legislation in respect of the Limitation Act, 1963, with a view to removing its restrictive effects on the claims for damages, particularly in respect of those suffering from pneumoconiosis.

The Attorney-General: My noble Friends the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Advocate and I are aware of concern about this matter, and they have invited the two Law Commissions to advise whether, in the light of the Court of Appeal decision, any changes are required in the Limitation Act, 1963. I am also aware of recent criticism of the shortness of the 12-month period as it applied to persons suffering from industrial diseases, and we are considering the matter.

Mr. Allaun: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. How long have the commissions been considering the matter? Will the Attorney-General take immediate steps to ensure that widows' claims are not barred before they have knowledge of all the relevant facts of their cases and have at least had as long a period as a living injured plaintiff to assert their rights after acquiring such knowledge?

The Attorney-General: I can assure my hon. Friend that I am sympathetic to the point that he has raised. We are looking at the point anxiously and as a matter of urgency.

Mr. Hughes: Having regard to the considerable differences between English and


Scottish law, may I ask the Attorney-General to set up an inquiry consisting entirely of Scottish lawyers to consider the application and working of the Limitation Act in Scotland?

The Attorney-General: It is because we are aware of the differences between the Scottish law and the law of England and Wales that we have set up the Scottish Law Commission, to which this problem has been referred.

Mr. Willey: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, apart from the Lucy case, the settlement of the case of Mr. Pickles has raised implications for the coalmining industry probably wider than those which can be considered by the commissions? Will he, therefore, see that the public aspect is fully considered by the Government and that they take early action?

The Attorney-General: I am aware of that case. Indeed, I have seen the communication from the National Union of Mineworkers upon it. We will consider the point that my right hon. Friend has made.

Mr. Woof: Does my right hon. and and learned Friend agree that, before an action for damages can be commenced, it takes a very long time to investigate the circumstances in which workmen have contracted industrial disease? Does he also agree that it is virtually certain that many people will be left stranded on account of the time factor in establishing their claims? Does he, therefore, agree that unless there is a great extension of the time provision in the Act people will be left high and dry?

The Attorney-General: I recognise that there is a problem here. As I say, we are looking at it sympathetically.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that the decisions in these recent cases have left scores, if not hundreds, of people with a genuine grievance, which they feel they have an entitlement to have remedied, and that it can only be remedied provided that quick action is taken? Will he, therefore, give an assurance that in this Parliament the necessary amending legislation will be introduced?

The Attorney-General: Who knows how long this Parliament will last? I

cannot give that absolute assurance, but we are looking at this problem as a matter of urgency.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLICITORS (COMPLAINTS BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC)

31. Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Attorney-General whether he will introduce legislation to establish an independent body to investigate complaints made by members of the public against solicitors.

The Attorney-General: The Law Society is reviewing the procedure for investigating such complaints. This matter was also the subject of a recent report by " Justice ". Until the results of the Law Society's review are known and studied, it would be premature to reach any conclusion on this matter.

Mr. Mitchell: Does the Attorney-General think that the Law Society is necessarily the right body to make these inquiries? Is he aware that in some circles the Law Society tends to be regarded as the solicitors' trade union? Should not a more independent body be set up to make the necessary inquiries?

The Attorney-General: We had better wait and see what the extent of the problem is and what are the views of the professional body directly affected before we come to a decision as to whether there is any need for legislative or Governmental intervention.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIA

35. Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Attorney-General if he will now institute proceedings against those persons who have consorted with Rhodesian rebels.

The Attorney-General: If the hon-Member has evidence that illegal actions have been committed by persons within the jurisdiction of the courts of this country in connection with the illegal regime in Southern Rhodesia, the Director of Public Prosecutions and I will consider it.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am grateful to the Attorney-General for that reply. Did he observe the Prime Minister's admission at Question time on Tuesday, that


he had no facts whatever to back up his attack on the Leader of the Opposition and the Conservative Party? More seriously than all that smearing by the Prime Minister, is it is not the case—

Mr. Faulds: " Careful ".

Mr. Biggs-Davison: —that if anything is ever saved from the wreck of the Government's Rhodesia policy it may in part be due to those of us who have— [Interruption.]—had contacts—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must hear the question.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Those of us who have had contacts in the British interest —for it is in the British interest—and intend to have contacts, with Rhodesians of all races and opinions?

The Attorney-General: I have nothing to add to the admirable answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 21st April.

Mr. Paget: Would my right hon. and learned Friend tell me whether there is any constitutional machinery for him to obtain alternative advice with regard to the crimes that he may have committed? I seem to remember that he consorted with these rebels and visited Salisbury for the purpose.

The Attorney-General: I have had ample advice both as to my own actions and those of others in this direction.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

New Structures

36. Mr. David Howell: asked the Minister for the Civil Service how many service-wide classes and how many Departmental classes of the Civil Service will, on present plans, have been abolished by 1st January, 1971.

The Minister without Portfolio and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Shore): Among other developments outlined in the recent National Whitley Council Report, negotiations with the staff interests have begun over the merger of the general service Administrative, Executive and Clerical classes and of the general service Scientific classes. It is honed to conclude these negotiations successfully in time

for the new structures, which will initially cover approximately 225,000 staff, to take effect from 1st January 1971.

Mr. Howell: While recognising the considerable difficulties in abolishing the distinction between many hundreds of departmental classes, some of which are of great antiquity, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would accept that this is a very important, indeed central, part of the Fulton Committee's Report on the Civil Service? Would he see that there is no side-tracking into less important issues?

Mr. Shore: Yes, Sir. I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is very important and a central recommendation of the Fulton Committee. The figures I have quoted show that progress is being made over a very wide area towards the creation of a unified structure. The special problems of the Departmental classes will be dealt with as quickly as possible, either subsequent to or as part of the general review that I have described.

Mr. Sheldon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the success of the open structure will depend on the way in which the specialist classes are integrated into it and that it will not be enough to incorporate only the Administrative, Executive and Clerical grades?

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend has very close knowledge of this. We are fully alive to this problem and are proceeding as quickly as we can.

NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES

Q1. Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister if he will set up an interdepartmental committee to investigate which sectors of the nationalised industries are suitable for denationalisation.

Q6. Mr. Molloy: asked the Prime Minister if he will set up an interdepartmental committee to examine both public and private sectors of industry which are suitable for merging in complete social ownership.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): No, Sir.

Mr. Marten: Does that mean that nationalisation is the sacred cow of the


Labour Party? Will the Government not consider the proposition that Government capital should be taken from, for example, the two nationalised commercial air corporations and put to a better use in building, for example, schools and hospitals?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman, most unusually, has drawn the wrong conclusions from the answer. Each case for nationalisation and denationalisation must be considered on its merits. Coal, gas and electricity are all before the House. As I understand the policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite it is to denationalise the most profitable areas for the benefit of particular interests and to leave the essential services which, by their nature, must be loss-making, to the taxpayer.

Mr. Moonman: The Prime Minister has rightly rejected the absurd suggestion made in the Question. Would he consider establishing a Departmental committee to consider how the Government might give further support to industrial innovation, particularly with regard to Europe, so that we can make the most positive contribution when we go into the E.E.C.?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will know that the Fulton Committee reported in favour of the hiving-off of certain public services directly under Government control to independent corporations. This has been done in one or two cases, and we are examining others. As to the question of a wider European grouping, I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave him earlier in the week.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Why does the Prime Minister evade the point of the Question in which he is asked to investigate possible weaknesses in the nationalised sector? Is he not remiss in not doing that? Is he aware that everyone outside No. 10 Downing Street realises that the nationalised industries are far from perfect? Is it not his job to see that this is put right?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman, characteristically, is incapable of understanding even his hon. Friend's Question. The supplementary question referred to weaknesses in nationalised industries. We have long had a Select Committee of this House inquiring into all the

nationalised industries and these are subjects of frequent debate. We have not got a Select Committee for dealing with weaknesses in private industry.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the publicly-owned steel industry is now making rapid progress, particularly in South Wales, and that any attempt to hand this industry back to private enterprise would be much resented by the people who work in the industry?

The Prime Minister: I can see no circumstances in which any proposal would be made to this House for denationalisation of the steel industry.

APPOINTMENTS

03. Mr. Brooks: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consult graphologists before making appointments.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. If handwriting came to be regarded as a major criterion in making such appointments, I fear that a Prime Minister's field of choice might be unduly restricted.

Mr. Brooks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us will be relieved to hear that the Prime Minister has set his face against a system whereby a person's job can be at risk because of his script? Would he not agree that a recent disturbing case has indicated that our privacy and security seem to be at risk from quackery, and is it not time to investigate the whole of the snooping apparatus which can cost people their jobs?

The Prime Minister: I have looked into the case which my hon. Friend has in mind but I have to inform him that the National Allotments and Garden Society is not the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government, nor does it come within the ambit of the original Question. To judge from the letters I get from all parts of the House on many matters, if this kind of test were applied, even to Members of Parliament, this would be a very much smaller House of Commons.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is not the point that the handwriting is on the wall so far as this Government are concerned?

MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (SPEECH)

Q7. Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech made by the Minister without Portfolio in Manchester on Wednesday, 25th March on Great Britain and the Common Market represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Q8. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Minister without Portfolio to the Manchester Junior Chamber of Commerce on 25th March on Great Britain and the Common Market represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: I would refer to my reply to a Question by the hon. Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) and Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) on 7th April. — [Vol. 799, c. 50–51.]

Mr. Lewis: Was not this an excellent speech? Is the Prime Minister not aware that we should like him, as well as many of us, to be able to congratulate the Minister without Portfolio on that excellent speech? Could he not, therefore, add to it and say that he accepts it?

The Prime Minister: All speeches made by Her Majesty's Ministers are excellent speeches, as is becoming increasingly recognised. As to the general policy in relation to the Common Market, I refer my hon. Friend to answers I referred to in my main answer.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Despite the terms of the original answer, can the Prime Minister dispute that instructions have been sent to British embassies overseas to explain that his right hon. Friend did not mean what the Prime Minister now wishes to mean?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; I am very ready to dispute that suggestion by the right hon. Gentleman. The position is that certain newspapers overseas, but not so far as I am aware any Governments overseas, of course were in a position to misrepresent my right hon. Friend's speech. I have known over the last five

and a half years even British newspapers, with their high standards, occasionally misrepresenting speeches made by Her Majesty's Ministers, but there is no misunderstanding in Europe or anywhere else about the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we applaud the efforts of the Minister without Portfolio and that if he goes on talking as he does we shall be delighted? May I also take the opportunity to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on his success in Scotland with the Trades Union Congress? Has he noted that in spite of his success the congress passed a resolution by a large majority against—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This question is about Europe.

The Prime Minister: I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) ended his question by referring to the position about Europe taken by the Scottish Trades Union Congress. I heard part of the debate, which was unfortunately interrupted because I had to make a short intervention. He will not, I think, draw on what was voted on at Oban yesterday, because what was voted on at Oban yesterday was totally contrary to what my right hon. Friend has said. It was in fact a view expressed that we should not continue with the negotiations. My right hon. Friend has always supported the fact that we should continue with the negotiations.

Mr. Lane: To clear up the confusion which still exists, could the Prime Minister now confirm whether he has instructed his right hon. Friend not to make any more speeches about the Common Market which will raise fresh doubts about the Government's good faith on the eve of negotiations?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. No such instructions have been issued by me or by anyone else. The position of Her Majesty's Government was made clear in the statement I made to the House in February and by Government spokesmen in the debate. There is no doubt at all in Europe about where Her Majesty's Government stand.

HOUSING (FINANCE)

Q9. Dame Irene Ward: asked the Prime Minister whether, following his discussions on 17th April at Newcastle-upon-Tyne with the Northern Economic Planning Council, he will give an assurance that the additional support for local authorities for the building of new houses and the provision of money to do so will be forthcoming.

The Prime Minister: This matter was not discussed at my meeting with members of the Northern Economic Planning Board and three members of the Council on 17th April.

Dame Irene Ward: Is the Prime Minister aware that a statement was made by the Deputy Chairman of the Northern Economic Planning Council that this subject was under discussion? Does this not reflect on the Prime Minister's and the Government's view that the Government's housing policy is very satisfactory, for it is not?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry the hon. Lady is disappointed about this. It is not my recollection, nor that of others who were present, that this was discussed. As to housing policy, I went straight from this meeting to Gateshead to open its new housing development. The hon. Lady will know that Gateshead—which, just by accident, happens to be a Labour-controlled borough—has by far the best record in the area which she has the honour to represent. With the active help —of not in spite of —Government policy, we have these magnificent records set up by Gateshead Council.

Mr. Conlon: Does my right hon. Friend recall that on his visit to Gateshead last Friday he saw concrete evidence of an outstanding achievement in house building? Did this not prove that the most essential ingredient for house building achievements of this kind is the will by councils to get on with the job?

The Prime Minister: I thought that point was made in an entirely uncontroversial speech I made on that occasion, Since there still seems some doubt in the mind of the hon. Lady, she might like to know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government will shortly be tabling an Order

fixing the representative rate of interest for calculating housing subsidies for 1970–71, which will have the effect of increasing the subsidy for dwellings completed in this financial year. The hon. Lady will also know from the Chancellor's Budget Statement that local authorities can now greatly increase borrowing from the Public Works Loan Board which it is estimated will mean an increase in 1970–71 of £238 million for this purpose to £915 million, or an increase of about 35 per cent. I tremble to go back to compare the figures with those when her party was in office.

Mr. Bagier: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Minister of Housing and Local Government found it necessary to write to Sunderland County Council to ask what it was playing at with its house building programme? The Tory-controlled council was asked why it has reduced its programme from 1,400 to 100— [HoN. MEMBERS: " Shame! "]—and has refused to take the advantage of money being made available for mortgage purposes?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is no doubt correct, but this was not discussed with the Northern Economic Council. As I say, what became very clear this morning is how successful certain councils in that area are in dealing with the help given them by the Labour Government.

RHODESIA (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Q10. Mr. Winnick: Q10. Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister if he will place a copy of the public speech he made on 18th April at York to the United Nations Association in the Library.

The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on Tuesday to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton). — [Vol. 800, c. 87.]

Mr. Winnick: Is it not possible that part of the reason for the present opinion poll findings is that a large number of people in Britain wish to see a complete condemnation of the type of evil which exists in Rhodesia? Apart from various secret talks, should not the Leader of the Opposition make perfectly


clear that there can be no honourable agreement between Britain and the illegal regime based on the six principles? Why does the Leader of the Opposition not make perfectly clear that no such agreement can be negotiated?

The Prime Minister: I never comment on public opinion polls. [An HoN. MEMBER: " Indeed?"] I did not comment on them yesterday. If the Leader of the Opposition has any evidence to the contrary, he should get up and say so. He is always more articulate outside this House—as on the subject we discussed on Tuesday—than he is inside the House, but I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to interrupt from a seated position.

Mr. Faulds: He has not the spine to stand up.

The Prime Minister: With regard to— [Interruption.] There is plenty of time. With regard to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, I think some of us are getting a little tired— [An HON. MEMBER: " Of you."] However tired people may be of me, I think most people will regard me as the lesser of the two evils. I always put these things in a modest way. With regard to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, I think that the House is getting a little tired of having to waste time at Question Time. This must be the sixth time now that hon. Gentlemen in various parts of the House have asked whether the right hon. Gentleman will come clean, which he has not done, about any secret contacts between his party and the Rhodesians.

Mr. Heath: Will the Prime Minister be so kind as to state what his specific complaint is against my colleagues and myself and provide the evidence for it?

The Prime Minister: The complaint against the right hon. Gentleman is that he has failed to answer challenges, both in the Press and six times in the House, suggesting that there have been secret talks between his party and the illegal regime in Rhodesia. That is the complaint which he has not either confirmed or denied. If he had denied it the first time it was raised the whole House would have accepted his denial.
Instead, we got this extraordinary comment on Sunday night—really, I do

not know what is coming over the right hon. Gentleman with his irascibility in these —matters when he referred to long-past negotiations which the whole House knew about. Surely he can tell us that there have been no emissaries—no private contacts between him and the regime in the last three or four months. If he says that there have not been, the House will be very ready to accept it; and we have been waiting a long time. If he says that there have been, he had better give us a full account of them.

Mr. Heath: Will the Prime Minister now, instead of—

Hon. Members: Answer!

Mr. Heath: — instead of—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House hears both sides.

Mr. Faulds: Come clean, Ted.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) must control himself.

Mr. Heath: Will the Prime Minister now, instead of referring to allegations which have been absolutely unsubstantiated and made by his own backbenchers, and with which he did not associate himself until his speech at York, say what is the specific complaint against myself and my colleagues and provide the House with the evidence for such a complaint?

The Prime Minister: This becomes more extraordinary. I have given the right hon. Gentleman— [HoN. MEMBERS: Answer! "]—I will answer, yes. The right hon. Gentleman has been given every facility.

Hon. Members: Answer!

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House hears both sides.

The Prime Minister: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what the complaint against him is. That is his question. It is that he has been given every facility, which could have ended this weeks ago, for saying that there have been no contacts. He has refused, and still refuses, to do so.

The complaint is that he refuses to answer allegations, not only by my hon.


Friends, but allegations made also on behalf of the Liberal Party, allegations made in the British Press—a straight challenge to him in the British Press, a report in the Daily Telegraph from Rhodesia saying that this was being said by the Rhodesian regime in its election campaign; and a statement in The Times —[HON. MEMBERS: " Oh."] —this week to the effect that spokesmen for what are called political circles in Rhodesia —as far as I know, there is only one that is free to speak there—have said that these contacts have taken place.

It is now for the right hon. Gentleman to deny that or confirm it.

Mr. Heath: I have made plain in the House—I made it plain in the statement on Saturday—that, whenever anybody from Rhodesia, whether a supporter or an opponent of the regime, wishes to see my colleagues or myself, in London or elsewhere, he is and has been free to do so; that there is nothing whatever secret about these meetings; that, when there have been new proposals, they have been offered to the Government; and that, when there has been nothing new, for obvious reasons nothing has been said to the Government. I have further said that if there is any information the Government want, they can have it on request.
The country can therefore know quite clearly that the Prime Minister has absolutely no complaint against myself or my colleagues and has not a scrap of evidence to offer for his allegation.

The Prime Minister: The statement made by the right hon. Gentleman—on Sunday, I think, not Saturday—did not answer the question put to him. The right hon. Gentleman said in the House a few weeks ago, and I was content to accept it then, that anyone coming to this country from Rhodesia—for or against the regime—is seen by himself, or indeed any other right hon. Gentleman in any party. That is normal and has been happening for a long time. I said that when the right hon. Gentleman raised this question on a previous occasion.
The question is not that, nor is it the issue with which the right hon. Gentleman tried to obfuscate the matter on Sunday as to whether we were told by the right lion. Members for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and Kinross and West

Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) when they were there. Of course we were told, and the House was told. The question is—and I have no evidence on this, as I have made clear to the right hon. Gentleman— [HoN. MEMBERS: " Oh."] —except the fact that this matter has now been raised at least half a dozen times in the House and evidence produced, even in the Tory Press, which the right hon. Gentleman seems unwilling to answer. [Interruption.]
I have said many many times—if the hon. Gentleman will, to use the choice phrase of a right hon. Gentleman, contain his impatience—that if the right hon. Gentleman will deny these secret talks the whole House will accept it. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman has not denied these talks, in view of all the statements made about it. He now tells me that he is prepared to make available to the Government all information about all secret contacts he has had. [Interruption.] Is not that what he has just said?

Mr. Heath: No.

The Prime Minister: About any contacts he has had. He now says that he will make these available across the Floor of the House. That is not the qualification made in his statement on Sunday night. Will he now make available to me and the House any information about any contacts there have been through any emissary, if there has been one? If there have been no contacts, as I have said every time, the House will accept it. If there have been contacts, the House as well as the Government is entitled to know.

Mr. Heath: I have told the country that the Opposition will make available to the Government any information for which they ask, in addition to the fact that any new proposals which come to us we always offer to the Government.
I am not prepared to make public information which is given to us by opponents of the regime who come to see us; and I would not have thought that anybody in the House would ask me to do so.
I have further constantly said that there has been nothing secret about any meeting—no secret at all. I repeated that in my statement this weekend.
Therefore, the country knows that the Prime Minister has done what in my experience no Prime Minister or Leader of an Opposition has done before, and that is ally himself with entirely unsubstantiated smears against people on this side of the House and against individuals named in this country. I am astonished that any Prime Minister should have associated himself with such things. When, may I ask him, has any Prime Minister or Leader of the Opposition felt it necessary to make entirely unsubstantiated smears?

The Prime Minister: What I have done about the right hon. Gentleman is to align myself with no statement but to ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer questions that have been put and statements which have been made in the Conservative Press in Britain—statements on behalf of the regime in Rhodesia—that such contacts have taken place. I have said I do not know how many times—I said it some weeks ago—that if the right hon. Gentleman would deny these statements the whole House would accept it. He has not yet denied any of these statements. The right hon. Gentleman, characteristically, is trying to evade the issue now by saying that he would not wish to place before either the Government or the House or the public statements made by opponents of the regime. Of course he has not, and of course he is right about that. [Interruption.] That is what he has just said. It is within the recollection of the House. The allegations which must remain unproven until the right hon. Gentleman comes clean are not that he has been talking to Sir Roy Welensky—I hope that he has, and I hope that he has been talking to Rhodesian liberals—

Hon. Members: Too long.

The Prime Minister: Of course it is too long for right hon. Gentlemen opposite. This could have been cut short a month ago by the right hon. Gentleman. The allegation which remains unproven and which he must deal with is whether anyone on his behalf, directly or indirectly, through any emissary, document or in any other way, has been discussing with the regime the possible terms of a future settlement.

Mr. Ridley: On a point of order. The Prime Minister has now on six separate occasions made unsubstantiated allegations against my right hon. Friend for which he admits he has no evidence whatsoever and which my right hon. Friend has answered to the full. [HoN. MEMBERS: " Oh."] Is it not the custom in the House that when a right hon. or hon. Member accuses another he is courteous enough to withdraw offensive remarks for which he has no substantive evidence at all to offer? Therefore, Mr. Speaker, would you call upon the Prime Minister to withdraw the allegations which he has been unable to substantiate this afternoon?

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a lot of business ahead of us. I will deal with the point of order. It is in fact a point of argument between the two Front Benches and not a point of order.

Mr. McNamara: Further to the point of order. The Leader of the Opposition did not reply to the specific point made by my right hon. Friend. In those circumstances, was it legitimate for the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) to appear as a new champion for the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Marten: Further to that last point of order, Mr. Speaker. Without our in any way entering into the political merits involved in Rhodesia, and recognising that we are in a highly political atmosphere, could you give a Ruling on whether it is in order for an hon. Gentleman opposite during Question Time, when the Government are under question, to pose a question to the Opposition?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not unknown during Question Time for an hon. Member who should be putting a Question to a Minister to make a side thrust at the Opposition. It is in order.

Mr. Howie: On a new point of order. Since the House is in considerable difficulty over what is alleged to have happened here, in Salisbury, or elsewhere, would it be in order for the Leader of the Opposition to issue a Shadow White Paper to explain the situation to us?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. The habit is growing, and I must deprecate it, of putting as points of order points of political argument.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order. May one inquire on what Question before the House all this has taken place? As I understand it, there have for a long time been negotiations, direct and secret—one remembers Sir Max Aitken and Lord Goodman—between the Government of Rhodesia and Her Majesty's Government. Now there appears to be a suggestion that the Opposition have taken on where the Government have failed, and the Opposition seem to be extraordinarily sensitive about it. Why?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order but a point of mystification on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Peyton: On a point of order. In answer to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), Mr. Speaker, you said that the practice of Ministers asking questions was not unknown. The fact that the practice is not unknown surely does not put it in order. My submission to you is that the Prime Minister characteristically and habitually cheats at Question Time.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That too is not a point for Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory reply given by the Leader of the Opposition, I shall try to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Blaker: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), surely the Prime Minister's practice of asking questions is to be encouraged, so that he should get some practice for his future role?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have had a number of points of order which would have been proper supplementary questions at the right time if I had called them.

Mr. Amery: This is a genuine supplementary—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has shot himself down. I am not taking supplementaries now.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons Mr. Fred Peart): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 27TH APRIL—Second Reading of the Construction Industry Contracts Bill and of the Guyana Republic Bill [Lords].

Motions on the Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Orders and on the Civil Aviation (Crown Aircraft) Order.

TUESDAY, 28TH APRIL and WEDNESDAY, 29TH APRIL—Subject to the recommendations of the Business Committee, remaining stages of the Ports Bill.

THURSDAY, 30TH APRIL—Second Reading of the Shipbuilding Industry Bill. Remaining stages of the Guyana Republic Bill [Lords].

Motions on the Judges' Remuneration Order and on the Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order.

FRIDAY, 1ST MAY—Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY, 4TH MAY—Private Members' Motions until 7 p.m.

Afterwards, remaining stages of the Administration of Justice Bill [Lords].

Mr. Heath: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the Industrial Relations Bill and the Finance Bill will be published?

Mr. Peart: I expect the Finance Bill to be published on 28th April and the Industrial Relations Bill soon thereafter.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Will my right hon. Friend give us a debate on Rhodesia at the earliest possible date?

Mr. Peart: I cannot promise a specific date. I note what my right hon. Friend has said.

Dame Irene Ward: May we have a debate on the composition of the Committee on Privacy? There is only one woman member of that committee and as privacy is a matter in which women are equally as interested as men, and privacy affects women very much, might not it be more appropriate to have more than one woman on that very important committee?
If the Leader of the House cannot promise me a debate on the subject, will he ask the Home Secretary to reconsider the position with a view to establishing a better relationship between men and women on the committee?

Mr. Peart: I was not aware that men and women had a bad relationship on that committee.

Dame Irene Ward: There is only one woman.

Mr. Peart: I know that, but one woman can do very well. But I would say, " Not next week ".

Mr. William Hamilton: When will my right hon. Friend provide time for a debate on the Report on the Declaration of Members' Interests? It is extremely urgent that we have one very soon.

Mr. Peart: I know that it is important. My hon. Friend and many others press me for debates on many reports. To find time is extremely difficult. I cannot promise, but I will look at this carefully.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Could the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a very early statement on unemployment in Dundee, as he told his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) yesterday that the unemployment percentage in Dundee is below the Scottish average, whereas the reverse is the case?

Mr. Peart: I will look into this, and convey what the hon. Gentleman says to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Henig: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the recent Report of the Select Committee on Procedure to allow, among other things, hon. Members to express their views on the persistent refusal by the Table Office to accept certain classes of Questions?

Mr. Peart: I have said that I will look at Reports from Select Committees. There are many; it is a matter of assigning priorities. I am sorry, but not next week.

Sir F. Bennett: The Leader of the House may be unaware of it, but within the last hour or so it has become known that Her Majesty's Government have delivered a final ultimatum to the Marta Government on the terms of aid which the Malta Government have found unacceptable. Her Majesty's Government are, however, claiming that the talks are still going on. It would appear that the Malta Government, on the other hand, say that the talks have inevitably broken down and that there is deadlock and stalemate.
Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to tell us about this matter? Let us learn about it through a statement in the House rather than in diverse ways.

Mr. Peart: Immediately after Business Questions I will contact my right hon. Friend's Department. It would be right to give the House information on this important matter.

Mr. Faulds: May I stress the necessity of an early debate on Southern Rhodesia, in view of the dubious behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition in making contact with the illegal regime in secret, which he has not denied?

Mr. Peart: We have already had an across-the-floor exchange on this issue today. I told my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) that I will take note of the request for a debate. I am aware that there is also on the Order Paper Motion No. 248 about Rhodesia.

Mr. Marten: Has the right hon. Gentleman read Motion No. 242 on the Order Paper, standing in the names of some of my hon. Friends and my name, concerning the decision by the Secretary of State for Education and Science to dismiss in August this year the so-called " unqualified teachers "? In view of the unfairness of that decision, should there not be a debate?
[That this House urges the Secretary of State for Education and Science to


revoke his decision that unqualified teachers shall be dismissed by 31st August, 1970 and, whilst agreeing with the general proposition of a fully qualified profession, to consider a new scheme whereby those existing unqualified teachers who have given satisfactory service and are required by the local education authority shall be allowed to continue teaching.]

Mr. Peart: I accept that the Motion is important. I have read it, naturally, in view of my interest in education. My right hon. Friend will be considering whether any relaxation of the policy would be sensible and practicable. I will convey the hon. Gentleman's views to him.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of Malta with some urgency? No money has been going into Malta for a year now. If these negotiations have really been broken off, it will be a serious matter. Will he ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to make a statement tomorrow?

Mr. Peart: Yes, Sir. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is aware that there was a Question down for Answer by my right hon. Friend today, but, unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman in whose name it stood did not appear to ask it, so that the Answer will be written. In view of the representations which have been made, I will consider this matter.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend rearrange the business for next week so as to find time for a matter of urgent importance to the North-East of Scotland—namely, the improvement of Aberdeen harbour and the consequential communications between the North-East of Scotland and the Continent of Europe?

Mr. Peart: Not next week.

Sir R. Grant-Ferris: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he proposes that the House should rise for the Whitsun Recess, about which there have been many conflicting rumours? Hon. Members would then be able to make their plans.

Mr. Peart: I am aware of the situation. I will make a statement as soon as possible.

Mr. C. Pannell: Will my right hon. Friend consider a short debate on the Standing Orders of the House, to give Mr. Speaker power to end endless repetition and stop the continual cheating points of order?

Mr. Peart: I do not think that that is a matter for me or for business next week. It is not for me to take up the point of view expressed by my right hon. Friend.

Sir D. Glover: Will the right hon. Gentleman find time in the near future for a debate on the chaos in Committees on Government Bills upstairs? Bill after Bill is being saved from defeat by the casting votes of Chairmen, which he will appreciate is a very bad precedent and is not good for the running of the House.

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman made this point last night and I took it up in a non-party sense. I must watch this situation, but I cannot promise a debate now.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: More than 100 hon. Members have signed a Motion calling for the Government to hold a debate on the difficulties of the various communications media, all of which—radio, television and Press—are in difficulties of one sort or another. Will my right hon. Friend regard this matter as one which should be debated in the near future. and on a Government Motion'?
[That this House, having regard to the difficulties and problems facing the communications media of this country, believes that a Royal Commission should be set up to examine the newspaper industry, radio and television transmission, and the film industry, with terms of reference to include what steps the Government or bodies set up by the Government should take for the avoidance of monopoly and for the protection and expansion of variety of ownership, influence and control in all areas, and especially in that of the free and various dissemination of news, views and debate, and that the terms of reference should also include a recommendation that the Royal Commission should examine the communications media of other countries and should make recommendations on the role of advertising in these media and on what steps should be taken to prevent the further reduction in the number of newspapers nationally and locally and to


facilitate the establishment and financing of new and independent channels of communication, especially newspapers.]

Mr. Peart: I accept that all these matters which hon. Members bring to my notice are important, but I have to decide priorities. I am now dealing with next week's business and my answer must be to my hon. Friend, "Not next week ". But I note what he has said.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I apologise, first, to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General for not being present earlier when some reference was made to me. Last week, the Prime Minister used extraordinary words in relation to the Official Secrets Acts. He said:
 I know of no case … where the Official Secrets Act has been used or invoked to prevent public discussion or knowledge of information that should be available." — [OFFIGAL REPORT, 21st April, 1970; Vol. 800, c. 240.]
In view of this, could the right hon. Gentleman give time for an early debate, so as to make clear to the Prime Minister what these Acts are about?

Mr. Peart: I could not.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On previous occasions there have been discussions through the usual channels with my right hon. Friend about allying the salaries of hon. Members with judges' salaries. Have there been any discussions to see that hon. Members are treated on the same basis as judges for salary increases, which is to be debated next week? Surely it has always been the practice to have such discussions?

Mr. Peart: I cannot answer for a matter of that kind. I am dealing with business for next week. A Motion on judges' salaries will be put down. The salaries of judges is an entirely different matter from the salaries of hon. Members. I have made a statement on this before.

Mr. McMaster: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to Motion No. 252 on the Order Paper standing in the names of 40 of my hon. Friends and my name, calling attention to and deploring the excessive and unbalanced publicity given to disturbances caused by riotous and seditious groups and their spokesmen or spokeswomen and the encouragement given to a Republican minority in Northern Ireland—
[That this House deplores the Independent Television network broadcast on Tuesday 21st April of a programme based on a one-sided view of the riots in Londonderry in August 1969, and a biased commentary by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster, whose statements are designed to create further ill-feeling and to add to the tension caused by the Republican threat in Northern Ireland.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot argue the merits of what he wants to debate. He can only ask for a debate or statement.

Mr. McMaster: In view of this, will the right hon. Gentleman provide time for a debate on this subject next week so that there may be no further attacks on the police or Army in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman must surely be aware that the broadcasting authorities are independent in matters of programme content. I have noted the second part of the Motion. I understand that the I.T.A. has, in relation to Ulster, portrayed a number of different points of view.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman cannot argue the merits either.

Mr. Lipton: Will my right hon. Friend look again at Motion No. 150, standing in my name, because even the expenditure of £250,000 on extra police protection is unlikely to be able to control the largest demonstrations ever seen in this country, which will take place if the South African cricket team comes to the Oval and elsewhere?
[That this House calls upon the Secretary of State for the Home Department to arrange with the authorities concerned that the South African Cricket X1 shall not play at the Oval for the following reasons: the large coloured population living in the vicinity of the Oval are being asked to demonstrate against the matches in large numbers, the maintenance of law and order for the three days of the matches against Surrey and and England will impose upon the police a very difficult, if not impossible, task of adequately protecting life and property, and the risk of race riots will inevitably tend to worsen relations between the police and public, so undoing the good


work over many years by responsible local bodies to maintain and improve good inter-racial relations in the Brixton area, and its matches proposed to be played at the Oval can be arranged for some other venue where the risks and disadvantages already mentioned will be much less.]

Mr. Pearl: I am prepared to look at this, but it is not a matter for business next week.

Mr. Crouch: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make a statement next week about the continued use of the chemical herbicide 245T, which is causing widespread concern in that danger to health may be involved?

Mr. Pearl: My right hon. Friend has issued a statement on this matter, on which he keeps careful watch. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see the statement.

Mr. Abse: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the comments by the Lord Chief Justice in which, justifiably, he draws attention to the fact that there has been no debate in the House yet on the Beeching Report? In view of my right hon. Friend's past promises on this matter, can he say whether a date has been fixed for a debate?

Mr. Peart: I cannot give a fixed date now. I am sympathetic to my hon.

Friend's request, but I cannot go beyond that today. He will appreciate the pressures on business and those pressures must be realised not only by Ministers, but also by back benchers. But I will do what I can. I have given a sympathetic answer.

Mr. Onslow: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was widely expected that the Government's proposed Civil Aviation Bill would be published before the end of the month? Does he see any hope of any legislation on this important matter this Session?

Mr. Peart: I am dealing with next week's business. I cannot go beyond that now.

BILL PRESENTED

TEACHING COUNCIL (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Secretary Ross, supported by Mr. Bruce Millan, presented a Bill to enable the Secretary of State by regulations to secure the payment of fees to the General Teaching Council for Scotland for the renewal of registrations in pursuance of section 6 of the Teaching Council (Scotland) Act 1965, by way of deduction from the salaries of persons employed by education authorities and managers of educational establishments; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow; and to be printed. [Bill 156.]

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.2 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. David Ennals): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
We had the advantage the other day of a debate on the Ways and Means Resolution as a prelude to this debate. During that debate, we heard some of the arguments which may well be deployed again today. I find it difficult to understand why the Opposition are seeking to divide the House on this Motion, but no doubt we shall discover the reason from the hon. Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel). I am tempted to think that there is no more significant reason than that of the Opposition's trying to keep up their spirits as they see their support dwindling in the country.
The purpose of this short Bill is simply to bring the flat-rate National Health Service contribution up to date—to restore in part the falling proportion of the cost of the health and welfare services which it meets. We are not here to discuss the earnings-related social security scheme, for that is being dealt with upstairs by the Standing Committee on the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill. But it is relevant to note that an earnings-related scheme does ensure that contributions rise as earnings rise. So long as we have a flat-rate contribution, the yield is more or less constant each year and we have to come back to the House for an increase from time to time.
But while the yield of contributions remains static, the cost of health and welfare services is constantly increasing. There are several components to this increase. First, population is rising and the greater proportion of older persons makes heavy calls on these services. Then there are developments in medical treatment and improvements in standards, particularly in standards for the mentally handicapped and the old, which need the use of more resources. This entails the need to increase the rate of contributions.
These improvements amount to an increase in real terms in the expenditure on health and welfare services over the years. Since 1964–65, public expenditure has been rising in real terms at an average of 3·9 per cent. per year and it is planned to continue at 3·5 per cent. for 1970–71 and 4·3 per cent. for 1971–72. In addition, of course, we have to meet the effect of increases in pay and prices. These services—the hospitals service, especially—are labour intensive. In the hospital service, about 70 per cent. of the cost goes on staff. We have to meet pay awards. I am sure that no one will begrudge the nurses the pay increases they have had, but, inevitably, others follow from them.
I ask the House to accept this Measure for an increase in contributions to raise about £53 million in a full year. I have no difficulty in producing figures to show that this is no more than a reasonable offset to some of the increase in the cost of the health and welfare services. In 1960–61, the last year before the employers' contribution was effectively increased, a total of £961 million was spent on health and welfare services. Last year, it was £1,973 million, an increase of more than double the amount.
Let us consider some of the constituents of this expenditure. The largest is hospital running costs. In 1960–61, they were £492 million. In 1969–70, they had risen to £1,020 million, much more than double. In 1960–61, £30 million was devoted to hospital capital—that is, to buildings and equipment; in 1969–70, we spent about £130 million, or four times as much. It is interesting to note that, in 1960–61, only about Is. 3d. was spent on hospital capital for each £spent on running the hospital service, whereas in 1969–70, it was 2s. 7d. for every £.
Another area in which we have increased expenditure faster than average is local authority health and welfare. Here, the increase has been from £114 million in 1960–61 to £274 million in 1969–70, an increase of 140 per cent. This reflects our intention, of course, to continue to build up the community services.
The yield of the contribution in 1960–61 was £113 million. In 1969–70, it was £176 million, an increase of £63 million, or about 56 per cent. But it compares with


an increase of £1,012 million, or 105 per cent., in the cost of the service, so the cost of the service has been increasing much more rapidly than have the funds drawn by means of the contribution.
In 1960–61, the yield as a percentage was 11·8 per cent. It rose to 14·9 per cent. when the increases of the 1961 Act took effect, but since then it has fallen steadily, with a small interruption after the 1968 increase, until last year, 1969–70, it reached as low as 8·9 per cent. It is already lower, as a proportion of the total cost of the service, than it has ever been since 1957, when a separate contribution was first brought in and it would go on getting lower year by year, of course, unless we introduced a Bill like this.
Because the cost of the health services has risen and the yield of the National Health Service contribution is static, the proportion is continually falling. This is not a new situation, nor is the means which we are providing for it. Since 1948, there have been three increases by the party opposite, in 1957, 1958 and 1961, and one by the present Government in 1968. It is very difficult to say what exact proportion the N.H.S. contributions should be of the total cost of the Health Service. We have never had an exact formula to compute this.
The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan), in the debate a few days ago, made the proposition inherent in the proposed increase, I think, 11·3 per cent. In fact, it will be 10·3 per cent. in the current and following year, but, even if his calculation were right and it was 11·3 per cent., the proportion would still be well below the 14·9 per cent. which it reached in 1962–63.
So we knew that there had to be an increase. Having decided this, the issue to be decided was whether the increase should be on the employees' side or on that of the employer. Perhaps—we shall hear from the noble Lord the Member for Hertford—the party opposite would put it on the employee. They would be wrong to do it that way. We are sure that the employer should pay more to reflect his interest in having a Health Service which ensures the health of his own employees.
The employer has a direct interest in the success of the Health Service in

ensuring that his work people are ready and available in good health for their work. Maintenance of production depends on the labour force being fit and able to work. If a Health Service was not provided, the best employers would have to think about providing one themselves, and it would be much more costly for them.
With the proposed increase, the National Health Service levy paid by an employer will be only about £4 7s. a year for each employee, a remarkably low sum. It is actually less than a day's pay which a good employer would pay to an employee if he were away for a day of casual sickness. Under the new earnings-related scheme, we intend to put the main burden of the Health Service contribution where it belongs, which is basically on the employer. The employer will pay 0·6 per cent. and the employee 0·3 per cent. The present Is. increase will go some way towards that, but will still leave employers paying about half of what the employees do, so we are going only part way towards this new proportion.
Even though the whole increase will this time be put on the employer, it will only bring his share of the cost of the service up to about the same proportion as it was after the 1961 increase, the last one which was made by the party opposite.

Lord Balniel: On this specific point of the proposal in the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill to set the employers' contribution to the Health Service at 0·6 per cent. of his payroll, I understand that this Bill, with this increase, raises £230 million, but, according to the Government Actuary's report, the 0·6 per cent. employers' contribution will, in fact, raise only 198 million. Does not this show that the 0·6 per cent. will raise less than is being raised in this Bill and that the figures in the other Bill are not correct?

Mr. Ennals: No, that is not so. The noble Lord will see that the Government Actuary's report is based on constant earnings at April, 1969, figures. Clearly, by the time we reach April, 1972, there will already have been an increase in earnings. Even if we took it at the present position, the figure would be more in


this current year, because of increases in earnings than the figure shown in the Government Actuary's Report, which as I said, is based on constant April, 1969, earnings.
Concern seems to have been felt in the debate on the Ways and Means Resolution last week that the proposed increase would seriously affect the cost of living. I showed that it would have negligible effect—less than one-tenth of 1 per cent. in the Index of Retail Prices—even if the whole were passed on as increased labour costs. I sometimes wish that people would recognise that, even with this increase in cost, small as it is, we are also trying to bring about an improvement in standards of living, and not just in the cost of living—improvements which people expect of their Health Service.
In the debate last week, hon. Members seemed to think that it would be necessary to justify the levying of about £53 million per annum more either by showing exactly how the money would be spent or by showing how the cost falling on the Consolidated Fund or the rates or charges would be reduced. On the first proposition, I have said enough to show how the cost has risen and what we would expect it to do. The Government's decision on public expenditure for future years was set out in the White Paper on Public Expenditure, 1968/69 to 1973/74. That set the pattern of the expansion of public expenditure on the Health Service and the yield of this increase will not affect the allocation to health and welfare already defined in the Government's White Paper.
The question is whether an increase in the levy will affect the other resources from which the expenditure is made. I was asked specifically whether it would affect the charges. Of course, reducing or abolishing charges amounts to an increase in public expenditure on the service. This increase in the levy does not mean any departure from the plans of the White Paper on Public Expenditure. Decisions on the level of public expenditure for individual services must be made against the general background of the overall resources available, the state of the economy, the needs of other elements of the public sector, and, of course, it is still necessary to control the

level of public expenditure and charges for health services play a part in this.
The charges anyway provide less than 5 per cent. of the total cost of the Service, and, together with the increased contribution brought about in the Bill, they would provide 15 per cent. of the cost. The balance of 85 per cent. falls on taxation, central and local. In a sense, one can regard the increase obtained through the levy as restricting to some extent the amount financed by taxation. It is not practicable or meaningful to try to say precisely what effect this would have on rates or payments from the Consolidated Fund separately.
The Bill has one main Clause and requires little explanation. Clause 1(1) substitutes is. 8d. a week for the present 8d. a week falling on the employer for each employee for whom the Health Service contribution is paid. Clause 1(2) provides for this to be modified in decimalising the rate. Clause 1(3) covers the fact that, in paying over to the Governments of Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man for members of Armed Forces and seamen, who are normally resident there, we shall have to pay over the higher contributions.
As shown in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, the total yield in a full year of the contribution will be raised to £231 million, that is, after allowing for the cost of collection and administration. The hon. Member for Farnham was puzzled, as, I think, is the noble Lord the Member for Hertford, by the comparison between this figure and the estimated yield of 198 million from the earnings related scheme. As I said, his figure was based on earnings at April, 1969, levels, that is, a year ago.
At a rough approximation, allowing for the increases since then, the yield on current earnings would be about £210 million. Clearly, by the time the scheme comes into operation, the yield will be further increased by increased earnings, so the yield which we propose for the flat rate scheme will be very much the same as initially under the new scheme.
It is right that both employer and employee should make their payment towards the cost of the Health Service—the employer because it is very much in his interests that the health of his employees should be maintained, and the


employee, because, although there are, in the minds of some, misconceptions about how much of the service is financed in this way, it is right that he should, from his pay, make a direct contribution. The Bill makes a modest change in the current flat rate to bring it up to date, and I accordingly commend it to the House.

4.18 p.m.

Lord Balniel: The House will wish me to express its thanks to the Minister of State for the thoughtful and careful way in which he introduced the Bill.
As is so often appropriate, it is right on this occasion, too, to begin the debate with a quotation from the Prime Minister. Writing in the New Statesman in March, 1961, he said:
Year by year, the case is becoming stronger for taking the Health Service and its contributions under the general Exchequer system.
In fact, for the second time now, the Government are following a totally different course and, far from taking the financing of the National Health Service under the general Exchequer, they are raising the flat-rate contribution.
To understand the scale of the proposed increase which is to be levied on industry, we must first look at the existing level of contributions. In the 20 years since the inauguration of the Service, the employer's contribution per employee per week has increased from l½d. in 1948 to 8d. today. It is proposed by the Bill to increase this contribution from 8d. to 1 s. 8d. a week, an increase of well over 100 per cent. It is correct, as the Minister said, that when we were in office we also increased the employer's contribution, by 2d. in 1957, by 2d. in 1958, and by 2d. in 1961. The Government now propose an increase of 1s.
In the past, Governments have always been cautious about increasing the industrial contribution because, unless it is done in a context of reducing taxation or it is done in a society in which there is a low level of industrial taxation, it means that there will automatically be price increases following such an increase in contribution. Neither of those two conditions—reducing taxation or a low level of industrial taxation—can by any stretch of the imagination be said to

obtain today. The increase in contributions will certainly be added to prices.
Industry has had such burdens imposed on it in the past few years that there is not a chance in heaven of its being able to absorb these additional burdens. They will be passed on in prices as inevitably as night follows days. They will be passed on to the consumer, and this will have its impact on the poorer sections of the community, who were not helped in the Budget and about whom there is a fair amount of concern in the country today. Academically, as politicians or as economists, we shall see the effects of the Bill in the cost-of-living indices, but the people will see the effects of the Bill in higher prices when they purchase goods in the shops.
What is more, this additional contribution is being proposed, and the consequential price rises will follow, at a time—as the Retail Price Index, published the day after the Budget, indicated —when prices are rising faster than at any time in the past 20 years. Wage inflation and price increases are the great engines of social injustice. They are the cause of real hardship to people living on fixed incomes, to pensioners, to housewives, to all those who cannot take part in, let alone win, that battle in which might is right and the big battalions always seem to gain their way.
I concede that there are strong arguments, in financing the Health Service, for placing emphasis on the industrial contribution, but, however we describe it, whether we call it a contribution, a health levy, an earmarked tax or a payroll tax, it constitutes a straightforward increase in taxation. It must be considered as part of the overall taxation levied in the country. The Bill is an exercise in raising taxation simultaneous with the Budget, and it is wrong to undertake this exercise without reference of any kind to it in the Budget speech. Of course, the Budget looked far more immaculate without the inclusion of this increase in contribution. It had far better headlines, but it was misleading to the general public.

Sir John Vaughan-Morgan: I hope that my noble Friend appreciates that the argument which he is now deploying is exactly the one which the Labour


Party employed in voting against the Bill in 1957.

Lord Balniel: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend of reminding me of that. History has an odd way of repeating itself. The Government party, then in opposition, voted against all similar Bills when we were in office. It repeats itself in another rather interesting way. This bad habit on the part of the Chancellor seems to be developing. Happily, we shall be able to break his bad habit for him when the next General Election comes. But it is rather unkind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—

Mr. Ennals: I should have expected the noble Lord, in taking on board the point made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan), to feel some embarrassment in realising that he was advancing some of the same arguments which had been put by us in opposition a few years ago. But he did not seem to show embarrassment.

Lord Balniel: My right hon. Friend could not conceivably embarrass me, and I am sure that, if he has the good fortune to catch the eye of the Chair later, he will show that the point strengthens the argument which I was deploying.
The behaviour of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is rather unkind to the Department of Health and Social Security. The Secretary of State for Social Services is invariably left by the Chancellor holding the dirty end of the stick. The Chancellor did the same last year. He increased taxation by 340 million. He announced that there would be increases in social security benefits and the pension. But he failed to inform the House by how much the weekly contribution would be increased.
It was only when, on a Motion of censure, we summoned the Secretary of State for Social Services to the Dispatch Box, that we discovered that the increased contributions which would have to be imposed as a result of the Budget were greater than had been borne at any time in the country's history—and, alas, it was only to restore the purchasing power of the pension to where it had stood two years previously.
This time, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has used exactly the same

gambit. He was quite categorical in his speech, saying:
 I therefore propose to introduce a Budget which will in no way, either directly or indirectly, do anything to raise prices." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th April, 1970; Vol. 799, c. 1243.]
The young Sir Galahad of the Labour Party has become the Artful Dodger.
That statement was made on 14th April. On 15th April, late at night, when the murky deeds of the Government are usually undertaken, the Ways and Means Resolution for the Bill was debated, and we discovered that the weekly stamp contribution would be increased and additional taxation to the tune of £53 million would be imposed.
Technically, the right hon. Gentleman is right; it was not in his Budget. But it was a little too artful and, perhaps, a little misleading for the general public.

Mr. Ennals: The noble Lord really cannot get away with all this. I know that he is trying, but it is no good. First, he knows that the announcement about the Bill, without giving the exact amount which would be raised, had been made months before. Second, he knows that the Ways and Means Resolution giving the precise figure was published several days before the Budget. Third, he knows that it was the Government's original intention to introduce the Resolution on the Monday before the Budget, but, following representations from his right hon. and hon. Friends, we moved it, at their request, to the Wednesday. In the light of that, the noble Lord must not rake up all this rigmarole.

Lord Balniel: I most certainly can, and, what is more, I know a good deal about it. I know that the Secretary of State said in January that a Bill of this nature would be introduced. Equally, I know that on 1st July 1969—this is column 265 of HANSARD—he said that a Bill of this nature would not be introduced. It is true that we objected to the Resolution being debated a day before the Budget, because it is our view that a Bill of this kind, which increases taxation, should be considered in the light of overall taxation, so we asked that it should be debated after the Budget.
But let us see what the Bill means in practical terms. The flat-rate employer's


contribution to the Health Service is only part of the overall flat-rate contribution which is paid by the employer. In 1964, the overall industrial flat-rate contribution was 9s. 8d. How far we have travelled in these five and a half years and how sad the journey is. Today, the overall flat-rate contribution is not 9s. 8d. It is 65s. 11d. —and the Bill puts it up to 66s. 11d.

Mr. Ennals: Mr. Ennals indicated dissent.

Lord Balniel: The hon. Gentleman says that it is not so, so I shall give a breakdown.
The breakdown is of 15s. is paid for national insurance; Is. for industrial injuries; 8d. for the Health Service; Is. 3d. for redundancy; and 48s. is paid in selective employment tax. So, between 1964 and 1969, the employer's share of the flat-rate contribution went up by no less than 56s. 3d., an increase of about 620 per cent. In addition, the graduated contribution has also been increased twice.
Putting weight and emphasis on the industrial contribution is a perfectly valid means of financing the Health Service provided that it is in the context of reducing taxation or at least with a low rate of industrial taxation. The Minister referred to the increases which we undertook when we were in office. In 1957, we increased the contribution by 2d. a week, but we had already reduced taxation by more than £1,000 million from the Socialist level which we had inherited on taking office.
In 1958, we again increased the flat-rate contribution by 2d. a week, but a further £100 million had been reduced in taxation. In 1961, when we increased the contribution by another 2d. a week, we had already reduced taxation so that it was £1,500 million lower than the Socialist rates which had applied when we came into office. This is a totally different pattern from that which is being followed at the moment by the Government.

Mr. James Sillars: Could the noble Lord give us a breakdown of the benefits which accrued from the 2d. increase and relate them to the benefits which accrued to working people by the increases which he told us about

earlier, which bring us up to 65s. 11d. a week?

Lord Balniel: I could not do so offhand, but I very much doubt whether there are many people who regard many benefits as having flowed from selective employment tax, which is the main contributory element to the increase in the flat-rate contribution.

Mr. Ennals: The noble Lord's argument does not make sense—to include selective employment tax as if it were a contribution. He knows perfectly well that it is a direct form of tax, raising more than £600 million, and that if it were not raised by that means it would have to be raised in some other way. To pretend that it appears with a Health Service and industrial injuries contribution, is absolute nonsense.

Lord Balniel: First, the presumption that this money has to be raised in some other way is a presumption which we do not accept. Second, this selective employment tax is a flat-rate contribution. It is one of the major reasons for the increase in prices. It is a burden on industry which reflects itself in prices.
As I was saying, this pattern which the Government is developing is a totally different pattern from that which we followed when we were in office. They are proposing to increase the contribution by Is. per employee per week. This is over and above the increase in taxation from the levels which they found when they came into office—an increase of taxation of more than £3,000 million.
Frankly, I find when talking to members of the public that their minds simply boggle when one talks in terms of millions. In everyday terms it means that the rate of taxation today is equivalent to £3 10s. per week per family higher than it was in 1964. A very large part of this extra taxation is imposed directly on industry—corporation tax, selective employment tax, the petrol tax, which certainly falls heavily upon industry, the fuel oil duty, the national insurance contribution and the redundancy fund.
I often feel that hon. Gentlemen opposite in proposing an increase in this contribution, because it is called an employer's contribution, have a kind of pleasure in feeling that once again they are bashing the bosses.
This is very far from the case. This is a direct tax on industry which will be passed straight on in prices. For example, when the contributions were increased last November the ratepayers of London alone had to pay an additional Eli million. A similar problem met the ratepayers of every council throughout the country.
The pattern which we surely want to re-establish is a pattern of expanding social services where they are needed; the encouragement of people to stand on their own feet where they can through, for example, the encouragement of occupational pensions or the encouragement of home ownership—this is the pattern we need—combined with reduced tax.

Mr. Stanley Henig: Mr. Stanley Henig(Lancaster)rose—

Lord Balniel: I will not give way now.
There is nothing abnormal about this pattern. There is nothing Utopian about it except that we have not seen it for the past five and a half years. This is the pattern of the past and it is the pattern which should be re-established today. But it is very far from the pattern which is being developed by the Government. The pattern of today is of continued expansion of the Health Service. I certainly concede this point to hon. Gentlemen opposite.
The growth in the Health Service during the last four years of Conservative government was at a rate of 14·2 per cent. The rate of growth of the Health Service during the first four years of the present Government was 15·7 per cent. But it has been accompanied by a massive increase in taxation and it has not been achieved —and this is the tragedy—by the buoyancy of taxation which flows from a growing economy. It has not been achieved—as the Prime Minister promised the day before we went to vote—without any general increase in taxation. With the opinion polls as they are today it is quite possible that the General Election will take place sooner than many of us had expected—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Lord Balniel: I am glad that hon. Gentlemen cheer that—because the earlier the better for us.
Also, if the Prime Minister is to fufil his pledge he will have to undertake

another Budget. There will have to be 6d. off income tax; 14s. off whisky; 3d. off beer; ls. ld. off cigarettes; ls. 9d. off petrol tax; £10 off a vehicle licence; and the abolition of selective employment tax. All this will have to be undertaken if the Prime Minister's promise is to be implemented before the next election.
Like many other hon. Members, I believe that too little is spent as a proportion of the gross national product on health. We probably spend less now than any other Western European country on health. Most of them are spending between 5½ and 6 per cent. of the gross national product and we certainly spend substantially less than the United States. There is at least a presumption that the method of financing the Health Service is faulty. We are as interested in good health in this country as any other Western European country is, but one cannot just draw out of the air the employer's contribution and more than double it.
We cannot ignore the fact that industry is half crippled by the level of taxation which is imposed upon it at the moment. The move will be self-defeating. It will mean either that these increased contributions will be passed on in prices—in which case the revenue will be washed away in a few months—or, alternatively, it will mean that industrial investment will be curtailed in which case, once again, the growth of the economy is hampered.

Mr. Henig: This is all very interesting, but is it not the case that the levy made on industry in other countries, such as the E.E.C. countries, is even now, despite the increase mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, considerably higher than it is here? Ought he not, in all frankness, to take that into account?

Lord Balniel: That is the point that I am making. I have said that there is a valid case for industry bearing a higher proportion—perhaps half—of the contribution, but it must be looked at in the light of the overall tax situation. In the countries which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the overall tax on industry is substantially lower than it is here. The hon. Gentleman may make signs of disapproval, but I am a director of a company based on the Continent and I assure


him that the level of industrial taxation on the Continent is far lower than it is here.
It seems to me incredible that when one can find additional resources which could voluntarily be invested in health the Government positively discourage it. If people want to pay for private health insurance over and above the tax which they have to pay towards the Health Service, this is something to be encouraged, not discouraged. It seems sad that the Government have not been able to help the great voluntary organisations which can draw such enthusiastic and generous support from the public.
These voluntary organisations are big business, indeed, and they devote their resources to specialised fields of health. They are of the utmost value to the Health Service. When I travel round the country, almost invariably the units to which I am taken are those for which the finance has been raised by voluntary organisations, because there is a feeling of great pride in an ability locally to raise money for a local unit which serves the local community.
All these voluntary organisations face considerable difficulties, because charities have to pay S.E.T. We have said before that this tax is economically illiterate, but when applied to charities it is totally unjust. Why, as another example, for instance, cannot the Government re-examine the tax which they take from charity football pools? These are taxed at the full rate of betting duty. The Spastics Society alone last year lost £900,000 as a result of a court action, which means that its charity football pool has to pay the full betting duty.
Another suggestion which I put forward relates to seven-year covenants, which are a great source of revenue for the charities. The amount of tax recoverable is the standard rate. Could not this be rearranged to provide an incentive for surtax payers to take out seven-year covenants with the voluntary organisations so that the amount recoverable is not only at the standard rate, but at the surtax rate as well?
The Government seem to be wrong in allowing themselves to be locked in the

rigid ratios of financing the Health Service which applied when it was established in the 'forties—85½ per cent. from tax, 5 per cent. from charges, and 9½ per cent. from contributions. Instead of topping up these ratios when they fall behind, or, to use the Minister's phrase, when they are " due for revision ", the Government should examine the possibility of medical care being financed partially by general taxation, and partially by insurance.
The contribution could become a real insurance so that the supply of finance would automatically meet the demand. It would be insurance not to cover those almost uninsurable risks such as long-term mental illness, chronic sickness, geriatric care, nor extremely expensive specialised cases such as transplants, or special baby units, but an insurance to cover the fairly easily defined elements of the Health Service such as the general practitioner service, in-patient care, outpatient care, and ophthalmic services.
There is a strong argument for at least considering very seriously whether one should not, as a system of financing the Health Service, have part which is borne by general taxation, and part which can be defined and met out of a contribution which would be a real insurance element. What the Government are doing seems to be singularly unimaginative, and in the context of a heavy increased burden of industrial taxation, unacceptable.
I also feel that the time is long past when the House should be asked to discuss the raising of revenue of this kind without what business would call any " output budget " being presented to us. We have not heard how this increased revenue will be used, what savings will be made, or what shift of resources there will be from one sector of the Health Service to another. We have not been told why it is better to raise revenue for the service in this way, instead of restoring the growth rate of the rate support grant which has been cut by half in the past year. It is the rate support grant which finances the hostels for the mentally handicapped, and the sheltered accommodation for elderly people.
Not having been told how this revenue will be used, it is at least significant for the House to consider that the employer's contribution is being raised by almost


exactly the amount which is needed to finance the abolition, for the second time, of prescription charges.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: Hear, hear.

Lord Balniel: It is interesting that that suggestion evokes such a warm response from the hon. Gentleman.
We are told in Labour's " Social Strategy ", published in August, 1969, that
 in our view the removal of charges must be a clear and urgent commitment.
That is where I believe this money will go before the election. It will be a bad use of the money, but our major objection is that what is being undertaken in the Bill is a budgetary exercise dictated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which perhaps would be acceptable in the context of a major reduction of industrial taxation, but is mistaken in the context of a Budget which does nothing to reduce industrial taxation, and is mistaken in that it will give a yet further twist to the price spiral which already is causing the utmost concern in the country as a whole.

4.47 p.m.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: I have listened with careful attention to many speeches by the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), and, although he has an admirable bedside manner, I always end up by not quite knowing what the Opposition would do if they were in power. The noble Lord is very good at criticism, but not so hot at telling us clearly where his party stands with regard to charges on the individual patient. The noble Lord talked about part insurance, and part taxation. I should very much like to know how big each part will be if there is ever a Conservative Government, but we need not longer on that possibility for long.
I welcome the Bill. This money is obviously necessary, in that the more money the Health Service has, the better it is. We do not want to cut expenditure on the Health Service. We are not happy with the inadequate amount that is available to spend on it. As the Minister stressed at the beginning of his speech, there are enormous and urgent

needs for expenditure in almost every sphere of the service, and these needs are increasing. Demand is increasing, the standard of treatment is increasing, and the cost of treatment is increasing.
Are we to assume that the Opposition would cut expenditure on the Health Service, or make do with the money already available? Neither of those views is acceptable. We should spend more, and every source should be tapped. Reference was made to the Bill on 19th January. I am not surprised that this provision was not included in the Budget, because it is totally separate. This Bill is about the National Health Service, and we knew that it was coming. Incidentally, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Statement said that measures could be brought in at other times of the year. The Budget statement is not a sacred time when everything is done, so that nothing is done in the rest of the year.
The Opposition have not said much about charges on the individual, charges for visits by the general practitioner, for meals in hospitals and for long-stay patients in hospitals. I am totally against such charges, including prescription charges. We should not put upon the sick, who are the least able to pay, such a financial burden. None of us wants an increase in direct taxation so we are left with contributions. The Opposition have said that they will lower direct taxation. In this event, I do not see how they will raise money to finance the National Health Service as well as it is being financed at present, let alone more generously. During their term of office the Conservatives raised both the employees' and the employers' rates in 1957, 1958 and 1961.
In an ideal world there would be no charges, and the whole of the National Health Service would be financed out of taxation. I agree with what the Prime Minister wrote in 1961, that that is the fairest way of paying for the service. The employees' contribution was increased in 1968, but the employers' contribution has not been raised for nine years, during which time the cost of the service has doubled. Even now the employers will be paying only about half the contribution paid by the employees, which is less than in practically any other European country.
The onus is upon the Opposition, if they are not satisfied with the National Health Service provisions, to say how they would raise extra money, apart from the insurance scheme mentioned by the noble Lord, which would not cover the expensive items which he mentioned. Any other method is preferable to a direct charge upon the sick patient. The next most preferable way would be contributions by the employer, then by the employee and thirdly in direct taxation.
Out of the yield in a full year of £53 million, I hope that £25 million will go towards reintroducing free prescriptions. This would be a small amount in the total context of the service. The object of prescription charges is almost defeated by the high cost of administration. We should return to the Labour Party conception of a National Health Service if not only the treatment by the doctor or surgeon were free but also the drugs.
I congratulate the Government on having increased expenditure on the Service, and I hope that they will continue to do this. We still lag behind other countries. It is necessary from time to time to introduce Measures to provide for this increased expenditure and, having considered all the alternative methods, the Government are right in saying that the employer's contribution should be increased.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Tim Fortescue: It is always a genuine pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) and it is an even greater pleasure to be called before the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), instead of immediately after him, as I have been in the last three National Health Service debates. I shall look forward to hearing his speech on prescription charges, with which we are so familiar, and which I am sure he will make with his usual eloquence.
The hon. Lady said that she was not surprised that the measure was not included in the Budget. I call to her attention a speech made on a previous occasion in a similar debate by the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), who was a most distinguished Minister of Social Security in this Government She said:

 It would have been much better if the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, had introduced the Bill, because it is purely and simply a financial Measure. Indeed, instead of having a separate Bill brought before us today, it would have been very much better if these provisions had been in the Bill that we discussed yesterday, because in the Finance Bill the provisions would have been in their proper environment." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1957; Vol. 569, c. 998.]

Mr. Ennals: Will the hon. Gentleman remind us on which occasion, when hon. Gentlemen opposite raised contributions, they did so in a Budget speech? Never, I suspect.

Mr. Fortescue: I was just referring to what the hon. Member for Halifax said. If she was not surprised, at least one of her colleagues would be surprised at this method of doing it.
The hon. Member for Halifax asked us how we would provide the money. I hope to throw a few rays of light on what I personally would do if I were in this position. The Bill is one of the most unnecessary, anti-employer, class-conscious and malicious Bills that even this Government have introduced.
First, what is the object of the Bill? The sole object, as we have heard, is the attempt to restore the percentage of the National Health Service finance raised by contributions to approximately 10 per cent. There is no other object. The figure is at present 8·9 per cent. and the rise will bring it to 10·3 per cent. This is completely arbitrary and has no intrinsic merit. There is nothing better about 10·3 than about 8·9, 8·5 or 12·2. If this is the sole object, it does not seem worth doing.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Brian O'Malley): The simple merit, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is that it provides more money for the National Health Service, which he, I am sure, wants to see extended.

Mr. Fortescue: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself for a moment I will explain how this could better have been done.
We have just had a Budget in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after providing for the repayment of £1 billion worth of debts provided for an overkill, a surplus, of £244 million. He has


£244 million there that he does not know what to do with. The country has been landed with extra taxation of £3,000 million a year, about half of which is paid by the employers. Already the employers are paying up to £1,500 million a year extra towards the finances of the country. The Government will this year repay £1 billion worth of debt and will have £244 million over. But the Government do not want to use any of that. They must clobber the employers some more, they must show what good Socialists they are and raise another £53 million for the National Health Service by putting a greater burden on the employers.
The Bill makes no attempt to reduce the burden on the individual contributor by shifting some of it to the employer. The individual's contribution will stay at 3s. 2d. a week, but the employer must pay an extra Is., without relieving the contributor, to raise £53 million, when the Government have already this year raised 1 billion and £244 million more than they need. Yet they come to the House, outside the Budget, and say that they must raise another £53 million from the employers because the Health Service needs more money.
The hon. Lady asks us where we would find the money. This £1 billion and £244 million are not being used for anything productive; and if we want to give another £53 million to the National Health Service, or even more, that money is there. The money has already been raised by other means, and there is no need to put an extra charge on the employers. Over the last six years the Labour Government have raised so much money in taxation that they do not know what to do with it. The surplus this year will in fact be far higher than £244 million, because Government surpluses always are far higher than expected.
To demonstrate that what I am saying is right I will quote what the Minister of State said recently in the House on the Ways and Means Resolution. He was discussing the complicated question of what is a contribution, what is a levy and what is a tax, and he twitted the Opposition by saying that he did not suppose that we would now prefer to see:
 … an additional burden on taxation.
We contend that this contribution by employers is nothing more or less than

taxation. It has been pretended up to now that it is an insurance contribution, but later the hon. Gentleman said:
 This brings us to this method—the National Health Service contribution. The hon. Gentleman said … 
He was referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) —
 … that it was important to have a change from its being an insurance, but it never was an insurance. It always was a levy." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1970; Vol. 799, c. 1528.]
The Minister is admitting that this is a form of additional taxation. He will have a difficult task to try to distinguish between a levy and taxation. He had a hard enough task distinguishing between a contribution and taxation, but a levy and taxation I believe to be indistinguishable.
My noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) in his excellent opening speech said that he thought it was a bit hard that the Chancellor of the Exchequer always left the Secretary of State for Social Services with the dirty end of the stick. The Chancellor of the Exchequer pretends that he was not raising any more money, but, almost simultaneously, the Secretary of State for Social Services seeks to raise some. My noble Friend showed his normal compassion towards the Secretary of State for Social Services, but I believe that the Secretary of State for Social Services revels in this position, he loves every minute of it.
I remind the House of an interview given by the Secretary of State recently on television, which was quoted in the Budget debate. He said:
 Roy Jenkins, I think he raised about £350 million in his Budget. Do you know how much I raised just by a little small Bill? £460 million. He had endless debates in Parliament, he was on the television. There I was quietly raising contributions and when we got to the Third Reading of the Bill nobody was in the House at all." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th April, 1970; Vol. 800, c. 65.]
My noble Friend need not worry at all about the Secretary of State. He is in his element in such matters. This is the most tasteful part of his job—the raising of money on the quiet when no one is looking.
This time the Chancellor has had a give-away Budget. Instead of clobbering


us again, we are to pay £200 million less in tax. But the Secretary of State for Social Services could not let him get away with that. He now comes along to raise another £53 million on the side so that he can claim he is a better tax-raiser than the Chancellor. He likes to do this and I have no doubt we shall see him doing it again before the General Election.
This is not a Bill that can be defended. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has lots of money. He has a billion pounds to give away for debt redemption and a surplus of £240 million. There is no reason to raise another 53 million for the Health Service at this stage. The money is there. I believe that the Bill is simply an excuse for hitting the employer over the head again, to show the right hon. Gentleman's supporters that his heart is in the right place, that the employer can always be expected to pay, and that it is right and proper to raise money from him whether the Department needs it or not.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) is most economical in his speeches and consistent. This is the second time he has made his opening remarks about my making a speech about prescription charges. He follows the rule that if something comes off the first time then it should be used again. But if he has many more years in this House he will not be able to use it again, because I hope that the guesswork of his noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) and my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) may be right and that it may not be necessary for me to speak again about prescription charges. I do not wish to rehearse the same arguments, this time, but I have a variation on a similar theme.
The hon. Member went on to talk about the Bill being class-conscious. He then made the most class-conscious speech in this debate. He spoke about the poor employers and how they are suffering and doing such a good job on behalf of the community. I welcomed some of his remarks since any speech that gives the House a few chuckles is to be commended. However, I very much prefer to hear him when he is talking

purely about national insurance, about which he is perhaps the most knowledgeable hon. Member opposite, than when he seeks to be shadow Chancellor and moves into the whole sphere of revenue-raising and capital expenditure.
I should like to pick up one or two points made by the noble Lord. I say quite kindly that the noble Lord is a " parfit, gentil knight." When he tries to attack the Government for bringing in things in the murky dead of night in a clandestine manner he is never able to develop his theme with the same panache as his hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), who uses murky phrases with far more panache than does the noble Lord, who usually speaks far more constructively.
I want to deal quickly with the six points he made. I would prefer to follow the advice he quoted of the Prime Minister, that the most equitable and just way of having a comprehensive Health Service paid for would be out of Exchequer funds. Nevertheless, that is idealism which we cannot put into operation at this stage and therefore we have a number of other means by which we supplement taxation. I hope that one day we will be able to get to that particular state of affairs.
The noble Lord commented on the progress of the Health Service in the four years from 1961. I remind him that he was also serving on hospital committees in those years when his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) introduced a 2 per cent. ceiling on administration charges in the hospitals. We never had it so bad as in hospital services administration from 1961 to 1965.
The noble Lord then chided us that we had increased income tax by 6d. but, in my view, that was one of the most courageous acts by any Government. Having arrived in office in 1964 with a majority of less than five when every newspaper in the country forecast a General Election within six weeks, with the Labour Party having promised to put up pensions which would cost the Exchequer some £300 million, the only way we could keep faith with the aged pensioners was to put 6d. on income tax. It took a good deal of courage to take that action at that time.


I still think the Government were right to do so.
The most important part of the noble Lord's speech seemed to foreshadow the B.M.A's proposals for financing the Health Service. I wonder whether it was a curtain-raiser, since the B.M.A. is having a fanfare of trumpets tomorrow at a Press conference to tell us how best we can finance the service. I wondered whether the noble Lord had some kind of preview and was giving the House a hint of what was to happen. I shall read with even greater care the Press release tomorrow and compare it with the noble Lord's comments in HANSARD.
I have no doubt the B.M.A. will be in favour of one of the noble Lord's ideas, namely an extension of some contribution scheme. Last year the total amount of National Health Service contributions through insurance schemes was only 2 per cent. of the total. The total amount of premiums paid last year was £14 million and the total amount dispersed £12 million. Yet in the N.H.S. we are now working on a Budget of £1,700 million.
The Bill is right because the employers are getting a tremendous bargain from the National Health Service. The figures published recently show that 301 million days were lost in a year—in other words, an average of 15 days per year per injured person. I am grateful to the Office of Health Economics for some of the statistics it has produced. The statistics show that on bronchitis alone the cost in benefits paid by the Government amounts to £30·4 million to the insurance funds. The value of days lost to production in the period under review was £1,200 million. Any kind of health service which is able to keep people at work is to the direct benefit of employers.
I have said before and I say again that an occupational health scheme and the amount of money spent on health comprise one of the finest investments this country can make in terms of productivity. At the same time, one looks at the total days of incapacity and sees that respiratory diseases accounted for 22 per cent. of the 301 million days lost. In the whole of that sum the amount called for by this Bill, some £53 million, is small in relation to the tremendous amount spent by employers on personnel departments, on industrial relations and

on various negotiations which go to the maintenance of the working force.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Could the hon. Gentleman explain why the Government do not transfer the responsibility for occupational health to the Department of Social Services?

Mr. Pavitt: The right hon. Gentleman who is knowledgeable on these matters has anticipated the point I was about to reach. It is true that in the Green Paper, for the first time, the Government have looked at the problem and are to maintain the industrial health sector within the Department of Employment and Productivity. The whole matter is most important and the right hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to it, and I would urge that there should be a Royal Commission on Occupational Health conducting a thorough examination of the problem. One must remember that that Department was first of all under the Home Office in 1920 and was then transferred to the Ministry of Labour. We now have a comprehensive Health Service and it is time we looked to bringing in the Occupational Health Service within the Department of Health and Social Security. It might be appropriate if a thorough examination was made of where occupational and industrial health matters should come in. This would be to the benefit of employees and employers affected by the Bill.
I am not opposed to the switch from taxation to contributions provided that contribution is graduated. I do not like a block sum of Is. 8d. Employers will now be paying that much per person. If there is to be a switch—and this is a trend in Treasury thinking away from direct to indirect taxation—I hope that this kind of National Health Service contribution will not be used as one of the means of reducing direct taxation. The Treasury is responsible for 85 per cent. of the service and this would have to be transferred to a contributory system.
Although I accept that there might well be a change of thinking to graduated contributions for the National Health Service in place of the principle of direct taxation, it would be folly if this were not preceded by a massive, tell-the-people campaign. I hope that this would be done not only at the time of any shift in contribution but as part of a more


permanent and constant exercise in public relations, so that people know what they are paying for. When we pay our rates to local authorities, we have on the rates bill a complete breakdown of what we are paying for. The trouble with Health Service contributions is that the impression is that the public give money to the Government when in fact the Government are merely distributing the public's own money. We have not a free Health Service. We pay for it. If there is to be any increase in the contributions paid in the weekly stamp, then it is vital that there should be greatly improved communication to show why it is necessary. At present the fact is not known that we are paying for the greatest bargain in Europe.
The Minister should use the medium of television to get information across to the people. I know one case involving a member of a family in the United States, where, within 12 hours of being born, a baby had to have three and a half months of hospitalisation at a cost of £5,000. A similar young married couple in this country do not realise just how great a service is provided to them by the National Health Service. The great benefits of this bargain should be put over by the Government much more clearly. We pay less for our family in health matters over 12 months than we pay on two items on our car, namely our tax and our insurance. It is time people realised the bargain they get.
I regret that mention has not been made either by my hon. Friend in opening or by other hon. Members that the money which is now being raised could be used to relieve the tax on the chronic sick and others in regard to prescription charges. I regret that there has not been a clear statement on this matter. In my view, this was the greatest mistake that my Government ever made, although I recognise that at that time they were under great economic pressure. But the fact remains that last year the chronic sick paid a total of £270,000. This was in prepayment certificates, 30s. for six months or 55s. for a year. It is such a small amount and represents only 0·15 per cent. of the total pharmaceutical bill and it is a disgrace that people coping with angina from coronary thrombosis have this additional burden. Therefore

to carry on with this niggling and ridiculous little tax is unjustified. Surely this £53 million could relieve the chronic sick of this burden.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) talked about £25 million being needed out of the £53 million if we are again to abolish prescription charges. Financially this is not so. The figures given by my hon. Friend were £16½. million in one year. I estimate that in real terms it would cost no more than £5 million to £7 million to abolish prescription charges. The scheme was clumsy in operation. It was medically and clinically wrong; it was grossly unjust. It was economic nonsense. If international bankers see prescription charges as an earnest of our careful financial acumen, they are even dafter than I thought.
The machines that we put into hospitals to take the stamps cost £210 each. In an acute hospital of more than 200 beds a clerk was usually put in to collect it. The House will recall that in the Inner London Executive Council last year we employed nine clerks at a cost of £8,400 and at the end of the period they were able to get back a total of £46. By all economic terms this is nonsense. This is apart from the on-cost we have given for dispensers. The result is that the total drugs bill, instead of going down as was anticipated, went up. In 1967–68 we spent £172·1 million on pharmaceutical services. In 1969–70 it had gone up by £9 million to £181·1 million. The estimate for next year is 189·7 million. So the idea that this would save money has been shown again, not for the first time in history, to be a nonsense.
The Bill is a contribution to increasing need. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Hertford that to spend next year 5·3 per cent. on the gross national product is inadequate. We need to get that nearer to 6 per cent. But we cannot argue for increased pay to nurses, increased facilities in hospitals, more home care, more domiciliary services, more home helps, more incontinence pads for old people, extension of the mental health service, the complete reorganisation of hospitals for the mentally handicapped, many of which should have been pulled down 25 years ago, and the


whole question of health services to the community if we do not provide the means to carry them out. I believe that the Bill will make only a small contribution towards this increasing expenditure, but nevertheless it will be a worth-while effort.
This is part of the general pattern. Unfortunately, the newspapers govern a good deal of our thoughts today and we are all election-conscious. In the headlines and in debates from now on, especially Question Time on Tuesdays and Thursdays, we see all kinds of little skirmishes before the General Election is founded. Following the tradition of this week, in my view the greatest achievement of the Labour Party was the inception of the Health Service and the fact that now both parties accept most of its provisions. I am not too worried about what will happen if, by some mischance. right hon. and hon. Members opposite are elected to office, because the hon. Member for Hertford from time to time has indicated a good deal of the thinking, which is fairly bipartisan across these benches. about what we want to do to improve it. I submit that in this pre-election run-up one of the greatest boosts to restore the faith of our supporters would be to get back to the principles of the National Health Service so well enunciated in the recent Green Paper, and the sooner the better.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. David Waddington: I thoroughly enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt). I particularly enjoyed his assertion that it was an act of great courage on the part of the Government when they increased the standard rate of income tax in 1964 shortly after being returned to power. Most people would agree that if that is the way that a Labour Government behave when they are being courageous, we vastly prefer them to remain cowardly.
Another point made by the hon. Gentleman, on which I should like to make one comment, related to his well known views about prescription charges. I have little doubt that before the election campaign begins it will be announced that prescription charges are being abolished. I also have little doubt that, if the Labour Party are returned to power, shortly after the

election it will be announced that prescription charges are being restored. That is what happened before. Therefore, the public are entitled to fear that it will happen again.
I revert again to the act of this Government, described by the hon. Gentleman as a rare act of courage—namely, the increase in income tax in 1964. Some of us are not so foolish as to have forgotten that in the weeks immediately prior to the 1964 election, with full knowledge of the state of the country at that time, the Prime Minister said on television that if the Labour Party was returned to power he would not increase taxation.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the hon. Gentleman explain that that was in order to give £300 million to the old age pensioners, which we promised and gave?

Mr. Waddington: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman hopes to belong to a party which is honest in its dealing with the electorate. If, prior to the 1964 election, the Prime Minister intended to increase the old age pension he must have known that it would mean an increase in taxation. If so, he had no right to go on television and make the kind of pledge that he did. It is scarcely surprising, in those circumstances, that people have little respect for his integrity.
I have not taken part in many debates on the Health Service. I do not pretend to be an expert on the matter, but I hope that it is sometimes useful for the non-expert to give his views, because he may possibly more nearly reflect the views of the ordinary citizen.
My view of this proposal is that, if looked at in isolation, it can be justified. But it should not be looked at in isolation. It should be looked at in the context of all the various imposts which have been placed on industry since this Administration first came to power five years ago.
The Government seem to imagine that the public are so naïve as to believe that when taxes on industry are increased the public do not pay. I do not believe that the average citizen is really so naïve. The Government seem to imagine that every time there is an increase in taxation on industry the average citizen will say, " Whoopee! Another sock in the


teeth for the wicked employers." But again I do not believe that the average citizen is so naïve and stupid. He is now sufficiently well educated to know that when taxes on industry are increased prices go up and that in the long term, if not in the short term, our competitive position in world markets is weakened.
It is worth pausing for a moment to look at the increases in taxation on industry which have occurred since 1964. We start, first, with the change to the system of corporation tax. Taking the rate of corporation tax today and comparing it with the old system of taxation on industry consisting of income tax then at the standard rate of 7s. 9d., plus profits tax at 12½ or 15 per cent., nobody in this House will deny that there alone there has been a vast increase in the burden placed by the State on industry.
Secondly, there is the increase in the redundancy contributions which now have to be made by industry and the increase in national insurance contributions.
The Minister scoffed when my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) referred to S.E.T. We must not forget that S.E.T. is still an enforced interest-free loan by industry to the Government and in industry other than manufacturing, it is yet another tax. On top of that is the vast increase in the cost of borrowing with which industry must deal as the result of Labour Government policies. On 15th April this year, the Financial Secretary said:
 My right hon. Friend said that it was anomalous that the employee's National Health Service contribution was 3s. 2d. a week whilst that of the employer was only 8d. per week." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1970; Vol. 799, c. 1518.]
Of course, there is nothing anomalous about it. There is no reason in logic why contributions should be equal between employer and employee or why the contribution of the employer should be in a ratio of two-to-one or three-to-one to that of the employee. There is only one real criterion—what taxation can industry stand without that increase being immediately passed on to the consumer and without it immediately affecting the competitive position of industry?
When I consider this increase not in isolation but in the context of all the

other increased costs which industry has had to bear in recent months and the last few years, I fear that we have reached the stage when, every time a tax like this is increased, the public suffers in the long run in increased prices and by the weakening of our competitive position.
It has already been said that this is an increase in taxation. I will not go over the ground already covered or point out that this increase was not dealt in the Budget statement, but it should toe put on record that the Chancellor did not hand back to the public £200 million this year: as a result of this little Bill, he has handed back to the public £150 million. The public will remember that, in a Budget before an election, the Chancellor handed back £150 million, while the Labour Government, since they came to power, have increased taxes by no less than £3,300 million.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Would the hon. Gentleman describe the Budget as an electioneering Budget, then?

Mr. Waddington: I did use that phrase: if the hon. Gentleman wants to use it, he may. I would describe it as a mouse of a Budget, which is hardly likely to raise a cheer from the hard-pressed taxpayer, who may have become punch-drunk as a result of the activities of Ministers, but is not so foolish as to forget this rise in taxes of £3,300 million.
I was driven nearly to despair by one comment of the Minister which exemplifies the attitude of hon. Members opposite. He said, in effect, " If S.E.T. is abolished, we will have to find £600 million somewhere else." One throws up one's hands in horror. The public are sick and tired of the massive increase in Government expenditure, the increase in civil servants and bureaucracy and the rest of it. I read only today in the papers that the change from investment allowances to investment grants alone has meant the recruitment of well over 1,100 civil servants. Goodness knows how many people are employed in a quasi-Governmental capacity to run this scheme. It is nonsense for Ministers to say that there is no scope for reduction in Government expenditure.

Mr. Ennals: Would the hon. Gentleman explain why his party is working so hard on the value added tax, if not to find


some other means to raise revenue so as to fulfill their irresponsible claim to abolish S.E.T.? In the course of that study, how many extra civil servants does the hon. Gentleman think that they would require?

Mr. Waddington: We have always said that we believe in shifting the emphasis from direct to indirect taxation. The Chancellor has sometimes expressed similar views, but we also believe that the overall burden of taxation must be reduced. It has never been part of Tory Party policy to work on the same massive Budget merely by changing the form of taxation.

Mr. Ennals: Here we have from the very back benches a pre-election commitment that there will be drastic cuts in taxation—come what may to the Health Service, come what may to the other social services which are required. It is very interesting to have this on record.

Mr. Waddington: The Minister knows that that is a grossly unfair intervention. I quoted one example where I thought expenditure should be cut. I could quote many more. But it is no part of Tory policy to cut essential expenditure on the Health Service, as has been made perfectly plain by my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), with whose speech I entirely agree.

Mr. Sillars: Would the hon. Gentleman define for us essential and inessential expenditure on the Health Service, so that people can know clearly which aspects will be cut and which will not?

Mr. Waddington: I am not saying that any aspects will be cut. I made it plain to the Minister that I entirely agree with my noble Friend. I do not agree with hon. Members opposite, because I do not accept that there is no room for economies in Government expenditure, and I do not adopt this flabby approach that, if one form of taxation, like S.E.T., is abolished, exactly the same amount of money must be raised by another form.
There is scope for economies in Government expenditure. I do not want to detain the House, but I could give many examples. I gave one from industry and I could give others in development area policy and in investment grants. There is a great deal of waste in the present

incentives to industry, but I should be out of order—let alone hon. Members if they encouraged me—to make a speech about the scope for reductions.
I merely wanted to point out that it drives the average taxpayer to despair when Ministers give the impression that this problem simply cannot be tackled, when they simply sit down and say, " Nothing can be done about it; there is no scope at all for getting rid of waste or reducing bureaucracy. We have lost the battle before we start ". We do not believe that. In the Tory Party, we believe that something can be done to tackle this problem, which is acknowledged to be very real by the vast majority of people.
I have made the points. This increase has to be considered in the context of all the other burdens placed on industry. If it were looked at in isolation, it might be thought to be a small thing, but when one remembers the increases in national insurance contributions, corporation tax, redundancy payments levy and all the rest, I fear—in fact, I know —that the increased cost due to this increased taxation will very soon be passed on once again to the consumer, who has had more than enough to bear with in recent months, let alone the last few years, as a result of the various price increases in the shops.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. James Sillars: One does not know whether we are taking part in an extension of the debate on the Budget or a debate on this Bill. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) castigated the Prime Minister for a television broadcast he made in 1964 on the ground that in his view the Prime Minister was well aware of the economic state of the country in October, 1964. I remind the hon. Member of the election address of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) in the 1964 General Election, which said that we should
 Study the true position of our country and contrast it with the gloomy grumbles of our Socialist opponents. These are the facts.
I ask the hon. Member if at the time when, the hon. Member says, our Prime Minister misled the country, the Tories, in the midst of their election campaign, stated clearly that we were within a week


or ten days of the £800 million deficit on balance of payments.

Mr. Waddington: Does the hon. Member not know that in September, 1964, the Prime Minister appeared at the Trades Union Congress and forecast a deficit of those proportions? Will he answer this question? Even if there were some excuse in 1964 for the Prime Minister promising not to increase taxation, how does the hon. Member justify the Prime Minister's support of a statement of one of his Cabinet Ministers, who in the 1966 General Election—by which time the Prime Minister certainly ought to have known the state of the country—made a statement that there would be no general increase in taxation?

Mr. Sillars: I think the answer is perfectly clear. There has been a constant problem over the years of getting a balance between the need for growth and a balance of payments surplus. This has been a constant problem before every Government since 1945. One of the reasons why we are now about to shoot ahead in opinion polls is that we have mastered the basic economic problem. [Laughter.] It is touching to hear hon. Members opposite laugh at this stage. They were not laughing this afternoon at 3·15, but they had a remarkable opportunity to do so when their Leader came into the House.
Perhaps now we can get back to debate on the Bill. The Opposition spokesman, the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), gave a long-winded, gloomy detail of the amount of money paid in contributions, but he could not give a balanced objective picture of the benefits given to the people through an increase in contributions. As a member of a Socialist Party, I have no hesitation in going on to any public platform and defending increases in National Health Service contributions when I can point to the benefits involved for the working people whom we represent.
I listened very carefully to hon. Members opposite speaking on behalf of industry. They painted a picture of British industry with its backside hanging out from its trousers, of Rolls-Royces with flat tyres being discarded for minis. To some extent I regret that the Labour Government at the moment are pouring aid

into British industry at the rate of £3 million a day. If hon. Members opposite accept the logic of their argument that raising National Health Service contributions is taxation of industry, they must accept as a corollary that the granting of aid at £3 million a day amounts to a tax rebate. British industry is doing all right out of the deal.
The noble Lord said that in his view there were other ways in which the necessary contributions for expansion of the National Health Service could be raised, and he mentioned private insurance. I ask hon. Members opposite in which country anywhere in the world there is a scheme operated on the basis of private insurance in which the citizen is given the same degree of comprehensive cover as he gets from the Health Service and for problems relating thereto in this country. It happens nowhere else.
In National Health Service hospitals in Britain it can cost £100 a week to treat an ordinary patient. No working-class family in this country could face a bill for even half that amount. The proposition put forward by the noble Lord was appalling and abhorrent. I should be very pleased if the Conservatives put forward that proposition at the coming General Election, because it would put the last nail in their electoral coffin.
The Government are to be congratulated on the expansion of the National Health Service since we came to power. We on this side all recognise, even though we have had differences about how we should deal with the economic situation, that there have been difficulties in the last five years. We are cognisant of the fact that, despite those difficulties, there has been a massive expansion in hospital provision and in health centres, which is one of the finest concepts ever brought forward in community health care. The Government deserve congratulation on that.
In expenditure on the National Health Service we have given very fair treatment to those who render the greatest humanitarian service—the nurses. The people of the country will not have missed the implication in the Shadow Chancellor's contribution to the Budget debate that the Government should be very restrictive in their treatment of public servants' wage increases. Nurses are concerned there.
I have congratulated the Government, but there is another side to this problem. I make no apology for following what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) about prescription charges. I hope that they will go, but I am not so certain that they will. The Minister said that they make a contribution to control of public expenditure. That is a fair point, as one has to concede, but we should look for alternatives to prescription charges for making a contribution to control of public expenditure. The Minister should look in another direction and consider drugs. The drug industry unnecessarily milks the National Health Service of a great deal of money. The Government are more likely to find the money which they require in terms of containing public expenditure in that direction than from prescription charges.
I also refer them, and again make no apology for doing so, to the need at this time to hearken to the voice of the whole Labour movement on something which is extremely important to us, not only socially but politically. Prescription charges have long been recognised as one of the basic battlegrounds between us with our Socialist philosophy and hon. Members opposite with their Conservative philosophy. One of my greatest regrets is that this Government have not abolished prescription charges. Their imposition demolished a barrier we erected to preserve a free service.
One could respect the Government's argument when they said that because of economic difficulties the charges were necessary. One can respect the argument without necessarily agreeing with it. But now, in a period of basic growth of 31 per cent. in the economy, there is no excuse whatever for retention of the charges. I urge the Government to recall that the Labour Party annual conference was unanimous in wanting these charges removed. I urge the Government to abolish them as soon as possible.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Worsley: When he opened the debate, the Minister of State said that he could not understand why we intend to vote against the Bill. I think that now he knows He will realise from speech after speech made from this side of the House that we object to a Bill which increases costs

for industry without compensating adjusment.
The speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars), although I admired its conciseness, showed, as many hon. Members opposite have shown, that there is in the Labour Party a strong feeling that if we want to raise more money we should do it by imposts on industry. The hon. Member's remarks about Rolls-Royces with flat tyres was typical of that attitude. If we put this additional charge on industry it will come out in higher prices That is the fundamental truth of everything that has happened in recent years with prices, and it is why the coming election will be about prices.
I want to confine my remarks to the financing of the Health Service. The Labour Government always remind me of the nursery story of Little Johnny Head-in-Air. They are always full of marvellous plans about the financial burdens they will lay on the next Government and the commitments they will impose on our grandchildren to pay to us in our old age. In their short-term financing of the insurance scheme and the Health Service they totter from one expedient to another. A series of Bills on the insurance scheme has been produced at the shortest of notice.

Mr. Ennals: The hon. Gentleman seems to ignore the fact that under the Labour Government there has been a vast increase in expenditure on the Health Service, there has been a vast improvement in the service, and there has been a tremendous increase in the hospital building programme. The speeches made by hon. Gentlemen opposite are about everything except what we are trying to do to improve the service. Will he give some little attention to that?

Mr. Worsley: If the Minister of State had been listening more carefully, he would have heard me mention the financing of the Health Service and of the National Insurance scheme. I said that, far from there being any long-term or carefully thought out plan, the Labour Government have tottered from expedient to expedient. They have put additions —small or great—on to the stamp, without any premeditated thought. They have great pipedreams for the future.
But in their day-to-day administration of the financing of National Insurance and of the Health Service they have tottered from expedient to expedient. The Bill is yet another expedient.
What is the Government's long-term thinking about the financing of the Health Service? The Government apparently intend that when a scheme of National Insurance based on a graduated contribution is begun a similar proportion of Health Service expenditure will be borne on a graduated basis. What is the rationale for this? What is the logic of this 10–15 per cent. proportion?
When talking about this great service, it is not sufficient to say " We have had this proportion since the beginning. We will accept that sort of proportion and merely put it on a graduated basis." There must be coherent thinking to enable us to finance the Health Service in a way which will put more resources into it and provide a better service. Britain puts fewer resources into health than other countries. There is nothing to be proud of in this. The system we have chosen for financing the service has proved to be restrictive.
We should all be looking for a system of financing which would encourage Britain to put more into health, similar to that done in other countries. This is not a party point, because it was a Labour Government which started this curious system of financing a proportion of the service by the stamp. We carried it on. Now, about 20 years after the original scheme, this Government propose to carry it on into the future. They have no thinking about any alternative system of financing. Has the present system been such an enormous success that it should be perpetuated for ever?

Miss Margaret Herbison: The hon. Gentleman, in making comparisons between our Health Service and health services in other countries, has suggested that the health provision of other countries is better than ours. We on this side would like to know something about such countries.

Mr. Worsley: The great majority of developed countries devote a higher proportion of G.N.P. to health than Britain does. I am not saying that there are no ways in which our health provision is

better than that of other countries. There is a better spread in Britain. Nevertheless, in terms of total resources going to health many other countries have a much better record. We should not kid ourselves that this is not so.
One of the extraordinary anomalies as the result of the bizarre system of financing we have chosen is that almost everybody thinks that the stamp pays for the Health Service. People often refer to the stamp as " the National Health stamp ". Informed people say that because they have paid their stamp they are entitled to certain benefits from the Health Service.
Only a small proportion of the service is paid for out of contributions. The great part of expenditure on the service must compete with that for the Army, the Diplomatic Corps and other matters which are paid for out of taxation. The service is borne upon the general tax fund.
One of the disadvantages of the present system is that it is misunderstood by almost everybody. This in itself is an argument against it and one in favour of change.
The present system has another enormous disadvantage, as the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) said; namely, its flat-rate nature. It shares with S.E.T. the appalling disadvantage that it bears most heavily upon the lower-paid and the part-timers; it is a general disincentive to the employment of the very people whose employment a State policy should encourage. Thus there is little to commend about the present policy, and I am sorry that the Government's only idea for the future seems to be blandly to continue into the future but with a graduated contribution system.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I agree with much of the hon. Gentleman's interesting argument about financing, but will he tell us what he thinks should be the alternative system?

Mr. Worsley: One should never give way: it nearly always wastes time, because in nine cases out of ten the person who intervenes merely anticipates one's next point. I was about to give the House the benefit of my views.
The objective of financing the Health Service should be that it should have a


buoyant and separate source of finance. Therefore, as part of a general review of taxation —I underline that about three times, because it is the exact opposite of what is happening under this Government —a percentage payroll tax for the Health Service would be the right answer. I stress that this is only my opinion; I am not laying down a party attitude.
This would be tolerable if the whole burden on industry and on individuals was considered to see what the general effect would be. Our great criticism of the Government's policy is that they have not looked at the whole pattern: they have just added burdens indiscriminately.
If a payroll tax were used for this purpose—hypothecated, to use the Treasury phrase—people would understand whence the money came and where it went to. This would encourage an increase of Health Service resources in a way which perhaps no other would. Were we to have such a system we could not only arrange payment of the receipts from it to the Department of Health, that monolith across the river, but give the local health boards an independent source of finance. We should carefully consider a system which would give the local health boards an independent source of finance so that the scheme is not State run.
I should like to hear from the Government—I do not expect to hear it in this debate—some long-term thinking about how the Health Service should be financed.

6.1 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: I wish to take up the point with which the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) started his speech and the point with which he ended.
The hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to hear some long-term thinking on financing the Health Service. The Health Service has been in existence since 1948. It was introduced by the Labour Government. Unfortunately, the Labour Government lasted for only three more years, until 1951. For 13 years from 1951 the hon. Gentleman's party had a great deal of time to devote to what he calls long-term thinking about the financing of the Health Service. But nothing came from his Government.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about financing national insurance. For 13 years

we had very little from his party when it was in power in the way of new means of financing national insurance. We had one measure, the graduated pension, which even the hon. Gentleman's colleagues now agree was a very bad measure. For 13 years we had no long-term thinking from the Conservative Party about how to finance the National Health Service and national insurance.
The hon. Gentleman said that we put less into the Health Service in this country than many other countries do. That is true. The amount per capita spent on health in the United States is much higher than it is in this country. But the service which the vast majority of the people in the United States get is much poorer than anybody gets in this country. I can speak from experience. Like most Scots, I have part of my family living in the United States. For over 30 years my brother worked in a medical group in America. I know something of the trials and tribulations which can hit families in the United States when illness comes into the home.
One of my hon. Friends spoke about the working class. I do not know whether there are such things as working class, middle class and better-off people in the developed world. However, in the United States people who would otherwise class themselves as middle class sometimes find themselves in almost abject poverty if illness hits their homes. I should hate to see the service in the United States come to this country.
People in the United States take out private insurance. They have Blue Cross and other schemes. Those who are lucky are covered by industrial schemes paid for by the employers of America. It has always seemed to me that the employers of this country should bear a bigger share of the cost of the Health Service.
When I was Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, for the first time the contribution taken from the employer was made greater than the contribution taken from the worker.

Mr. Pavitt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in America, not only do the employers pay more than here, but recently negotiations resulted in all employers in the motor industry, like the Ford Motor Company and other large


motor manufacturers, paying the prescription charges for all of their workers as part of a trades union agreement?

Miss Herbison: It is not unlike the situation which obtained in this country before we had the National Health Service. The man who had paid his insurance was covered for prescriptions and other things, but his wife and other members of his family were not covered. Even in the United States, families are not covered by many of the industrial schemes. I have a deep knowledge of the situation which obtains in the United States, and I would not wish to see it come to pass here.

Mr. Worsley: I do not know why the right hon. Lady seems to think that her remarks follow from my remarks. Is she saying that she does not want a system of financing the Health Service which does not increase the resources going into it?

Miss Herbison: Of course I do. That is why I support the Bill. In my philosophy, the place from which those resources should come is very different from the place from which the Opposition believe they should come.
We had a long diatribe from the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) about the increase in contributions. He was referring to the National Insurance contribution, and he added S.E.T. to it, which is the biggest part of the employer's contribution. The noble Lord knows that S.E.T. has nothing whatever to do with the contribution for financing the Health Service or national insurance. It was added when I was Minister because at that time is was the only suitable vehicle for easily collecting S.E.T. It was nothing to do with insurance or with the National Health Service.
I admired the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars). How right he was! We have not heard a word about the benefits from the Opposition. Earnings-related benefits have been a boon to many people. We have not heard about redundancy payments. If we want social justice, we must be ready to explain to people that these benefits must be paid for.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Campbell: In what I promise will be but a brief intervention, I want to make only two points. No one criticises—I certainly do not—the expansion in the National Health Service. No one says that there should not be further expansion. I have in my constituency a hospital 100 years old. I had a look at it a few weeks ago and was appalled by the conditions in which the staff have to work and in which the patients have to be treated. Anything that can be done to bring a new hospital to Oldham will have my support, whatever the cost may be. One understands also that there have been other increased costs, such as the higher pay for nurses, and as one of those who fought hard to get the nurses higher pay, I make no complaint about that.
But, although I understand perfectly what the Minister has said about the causes of the greater cost of the National Health Service, appreciate the fact that we have a growing population which increasingly consists more and more of older people who are more frequently ill, and understand that this accounts to a large extent for the increased costs of the National Health Service, we must not forget that by far the largest cause of the increased cost is galloping inflation—the fact that everything costs more, that wages are higher, that prices generally are so much higher and have gone on rising during the last five years and are rising faster now than ever before. That is the major cause. If we were to break down the figures I think that the Minister would have to agree that the increased cost of the National Health Service is to be attributed in the main to the increased cost of everything—in other words, to inflation. So the Government must not claim that all this increased cost is just due to expansion. I applaud the expansion but they must also agree that, to a very large extent, the rise in cost is due to their mismanagement of the economy.

Mr. Ennals: The greatest proportionate increase has been in capital expenditure. We inherited a situation in which the building programme over the years when the Conservatives were in office had been very small indeed. We are now spending five times as much on the hospital building programme as was spent ten years


ago. It is in this sort of thing that we have had the greatest proportionate increase. The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong in his statement.

Mr. Campbell: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and I listened to his speech, in which the figures he gave related more to current than to capital expenditure. If I am wrong, then I accept that I am wrong.
Secondly, I criticise the Government for repeatedly increasing the flat-rate contribution by the employer. I can agree that it is in the employer's interest to keep his work people in good health and an advantage to him to have a National Health Service which serves that end. But the time will come, if it has not already come, when to go on increasing the flat-rate contribution will hurt the employee far more than the employer. In fact, it does not hurt the employer at all because, as other hon. Members have said, he will pass on the increase to the consumer. It is, in effect, just another form of taxation. But what it does mean—and this is what worries me—is that there is now a heavy penalty upon any employer engaging a new workman. The stamp which an employer puts upon the card of the workman is now 66s. lid. a week, and it will shortly be 67s. lid. Thus, before a man does a stroke of work on a Monday morning he has already cost the employer 66s. l1d.
That may not be too much of a burden with the able-bodied employee who is going to work a full week, but there are other employees who cannot work a full week, who, for health reasons, are unable to do so. But the employer still has to pay. I know that if the man works less than a certain number of hours—21, I believe—there are concessions, but we have to consider the effect of the penalty upon the employer for employing the part-time worker who works less than a full-time week or does less than a full day's work in a day.
The Minister may recall that I wrote to him recently about a constituency case of an employer who has in his employ a mentally backward man. This man is quite unable to do a full week's work or compete with other workmen, but he nevertheless is employed by the firm, which regards it as a bit of " do gooding ".
It is certainly in the man's interest to have his mind occupied with work. But that firm is under the penalty that it has to pay for the privilege, if one can call it that, of employing this subnormal workman by paying this heavy stamp and selective employment tax for him.

Mr. Ennals: But is it not important that the subnormal workman should be protected by unemployment pay, by sickness benefit and, on retirement, by his pension? Surely the employer has a responsibility, as does the rest of society, for that person almost more than for the able-bodied?

Mr. Campbell: Of course I agree that the employee must have these benefits, but let us be realistic. Do not let us sit in an ivory tower. Employers are in business to earn their living, not as philanthropists. They are not going to employ many people of this kind when other able-bodied men are available, and it would not be honest to their shareholders for them to do so. The employers who employ a certain number of such people do so, one may say, because of their public-spirited attitude, which one applauds, but there is a limit to it, and if the Government go on increasing the flat-rate contribution which they have to make for every employee, the time will come, if it has not already come, when they will no longer by ready to employ people of this kind.

Mr. Eunals: It is precisely for this reason that we are getting rid of the flat-rate contribution. The hon. and learned Gentleman should bring himself up to date. The National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill, now in Committee upstairs, will end the flat-rate contribution, and so the low-paid employee as well as the employer will pay less in stamps than at present. But it has taken a Labour Government to do it.

Lord Balniel: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell) represents a town which probably more than any other has furthered the interests of the mentally handicapped, and I am bound to tell the Minister that on a recent visit of mine there, when I saw the work done for the mentally handicapped, the officer in charge of one of the units told me of the problem of getting employment for


the mentally handicapped outside the home but inside the community, which arises because of selective employment tax. The point which my hon. and learned Friend is making is worth serious consideration, and I am sure that the Minister will consider it.

Mr. Campbell: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) for assisting me. I confirm that in my constituency this problem is frequently brought to me. It may well be that in 1972 the problem will disappear, but we are still in 1970 with the Government making yet another increase in the flat-rate contribution, and I suggest that that is a mistake.

6.22 p.m.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I rather regret that in the course of the debate a somewhat partisan note has crept in because there is so much in common between us. It would have been far more agreeable if we could have used the time to work together towards finding a solution to the long-term problems of financing the National Health Service. One is always delighted to hear the right hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), but today I felt a certain disappointment in her remarks because it seemed to me that here was a case of the pot calling the kettle black. We did not hear from her what I hoped to hear—her solutions to the problems of financing the National Health Service in the long run. She rather dwelt on the failure of the Conservative Party to come forward with a solution when we were in power.
The Bill is raising money for the National Health Service, and all of us are preoccupied with the problem. If we on this side object to the Bill it is not because we object to the money being raised but because we feel that it is not just money that is needed but a philosophy, and there is no philosophy with the Bill. The Secretary of State has slipped his additional charge through the letter box of the employers rather like someone in despair getting rid of chewing gum in some unsuitable place. It would have been more seemly had we had some sketch of the five-year or ten-year programme of revenue and expenditure of the National Health Service as the Government see it.

We agree that there are only certain sources that one can turn to for financing the National Health Service and I want to run quickly through them.
The first consideration is the patient. It is accepted on both sides that the patient cannot pay the whole cost of the N.H.S. There has been considerable controversy over whether he should pay anything. Personally, I feel a great deal of sympathy with hon. Members opposite who do not like the idea of charges being brought into the N.H.S. Nevertheless, whilst one accepts that the amount of money that can be derived from charges is never more than a fraction of the whole cost of the N.H.S., it seems to me that charges have a place if only as an administrative device for the prevention of waste.
When one moves on from the patient's contribution to costs, one immediately comes into some kind of money transfer system. In the twentieth century we have elaborated the insurance principle whereby assets or entitlements are transferred from the successful and the fortunate to the unsuccessful and the unfortunate as of right. I feel that national insurance is part of a civilised community's way of life. But the national insurance system as we think of it is concerned mainly with employment. The money is derived from work people, and the expenditure through the national insurance system mainly goes out again to people who have been engaged in employment in one way or another. The National Health Service, however, has to cover the entire population.
The employer particularly has been picked upon as a potential source of finance for the N.H.S., and I am not one of those who would wish to contest that idea in the long run but only in the short run. One can quote from the remarks of the Secretary of State himself in his Herbert Morrison Memorial Lecture in the middle of last year. The right hon. Gentleman said:
it can be argued that the employers have much to gain from a service which promotes the health of their workers and it is therefore not unreasonable while financing the present level of the Health Service out of taxation, to finance the necessary future increase out of a levy on industry. Having said this, however, I must repeat my warning that if you step up the employers' Health Service contribution too drastically, or too suddenly, they might turn it into a levy on the housewife.


Inevitably, when employers are staggering under the burdens which this Government have placed on them, this further burden must be passed on somewhere. The bill will end up in the housewife's basket. This is a highly unfortunate development when the cost of living is rising so fast in any event.
Whether the Health Service should be paid for wholly or largely out of taxation is possibly the principal consideration for the House. Unfortunately, the antiquated structure of direct taxation has brought us to the point where taxpayers revolt at the thought of any increase in their burdens. It is not because direct taxation is particularly high overall—it is higher in other countries—but because the way that we levy it is so unfortunate and out of date that the burden is felt acutely: the marginal rates are so high, whereas the initial rates are low or nonexistent.
I have argued before—this is not the time to repeat it—that we need to reconstruct our direct taxation system altogether so as to fit the burdens much more suitably to the taxpayer's ability to pay. Then it would be possible to derive more income from direct taxation without the disincentive effects which one feels. This would enable one to provide more money from direct taxation for the Health Service.
If one is listing alternative sources of finance, one must consider private insurance. I know that hon. Members opposite are hung up on this question, which they regard as anathema. The Secretary of State has delivered himself of the sentiment that private insurance is simply a system for enabling people to jump queues. He is also hamstrung by the fact that he has not resolved his attitude towards flat-rate contributions and earnings-related contributions.
In Committee we have had opportunities to go over the philosophy of the earnings-related and flat-rate insurance contribution. I feel strongly that the Secretary of State has wrongly adopted the principle that earnings-related contributions require to be matched by earnings-related benefits. As soon as one applies the concept that an earnings-related contribution to the Health Ser-

vice means earnings-related benefits, one comes to an impossible point, because some people do not require benefits at all because they happen to be fortunate enough to go through life without serious illness. If they should fall ill, it is impossible to consider that they should have a totally different standard of service just because their contributions have been larger in absolute amount because the earnings-related contributions from them have added up to a larger figure.
It is sad that the party opposite should have lost touch with the great idea that we should pay for the social services on the principle "from each according to his contributions, to each according to his needs. "If they could only recover their balance and come back to that point of view, they would not find it difficult to link an earnings-related contribution to the financing of the Health Service, as is done in New Zealand, to which the Secretary of State alluded in his memorial lecture, where everyone has the same sort of treatment but pays towards the Health Service according to his capacity. While the Secretary of State is agonising with this problem, which he should never have run into, he must stick to flat-rate contributions, because a contribution arising from employment has either to confer super-benefits or to be limited in amount
The Minister of State tried to enlighten the House when we discussed this briefly last week on the difference between a contribution and a levy. This bit of verbal dexterity was an attempt to get round the problem of the earnings-related contribution one does not call it "earnings-related" because of the undesirable consequences. so one calls it a levy. Nevertheless, when all is said and done, under the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill Health Service contributions are to be paid for by a percentage contribution: employees are to pay 0·3 per cent. and employers 0·6 per cent. The employer's contribution will be exactly double that of the employee.
This is a complete reversal of the present situation, in which, even with the increase which the Government intend to impose on employers, they would pay only ls. 8d. against the employee's 3s. 2d. While I have been listening to the speeches I have made an approximation of what apparently will be the burden


under the superannuation Bill. Employees, it seems to me, will have to pay from 9d. to 2s. according to their resources, against the present 3s. 2d., and the employers will have to pay Is. 6d. to 4s. against the Is. 8d. So the Bill might be said to be a move in the direction of the new system, whereby employers will pay twice as much as the employees—a complete reversal of the present situation.
The whole approach to the costing and finance of the Health Service is utterly unbusinesslike and haphazard. If only we could have much more accurate casting and get down to much greater detail than has ever been published, we should be able to consider this, and the right and proper method of finding the money would suggest itself. This is a commonplace technique in industry and it should be adopted in the Health Serice.
For instance, I should like to be able to see how the expenditure is split between the young and the old and between occupational health—to borrow a phrase from the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), who made an interesting speech—and personal health. When we have been able to look at these figures closely, it will be much clearer to us where the money should be coming from to pay for the service.
I have often alluded to the fact that, in paying for the Health Service or all the social services, we must decide who is paying what to whom and why. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that that point has now got home to hon. Members opposite. When right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have mulled it over a little longer, no doubt they will come forward with their solutions. That will be very welcome.
I do not think that we shall find the final answers to the problem of financing the National Health Service until we embark on a total reconstruction of national insurance and income tax. Possibly the most constructive suggestion which one could make today is that the Government should either set up a Royal Commission to consider the entire dynamics of the welfare services or appoint a Select Committee to examine direct taxation and the social services as a single subject.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: What we are discussing tonight is an instalment of the Budget. It is an indication tonight of the attitude which we are now to face from the benches opposite throughout the remainder of their administration. We shall get our Budgets in instalments…The purpose of this new method of conducting our budgetary debates will be to prevent the people from understanding the new principles of taxation which are now coming into effect."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1961; Vol. 634. c. 1545.]
These are not my words. They were the words which the right hon. Lady the First Secretary spoke on Second Reading of the Bill, in very similar terms to this one, which we brought in in 1961.
There were certain other differences between the words coming from the Labour benches on that occasion and on this. The right hon. Lady went on to demand that there should be more direct taxation as an alternative to raising contributions. The present Secretary of State for Wales went so far as to prefer the rates as a method of providing the finance which we were seeking to raise from contributions. The right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) regarded a Measure such as this as being entirely to redistribute the cost of the National Health Service and thought it a disgraceful shift to indirect taxation.
I am glad to see that opinion in the party opposite is changing a little since those days. The hon. Lady the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) thought that even the employee's contribution was preferable to any further increase in direct taxation, although her hon. Friends would extend their preference to the employer's side of the contribution only. The right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), too, was one of those who expressed the view that this was an increase in indirect taxation.
There they were in 1961 demanding more direct taxation. When they asked for it, my God, they certainly got it. They may have had a moment's anxiety over the Prime Minister's pledge that Labour policies would never require in the life of a Parliament an increase in direct taxation, but they need not have worried—they got their increase, in indirect and in direct taxation, and now they have this increase, which is another increase in taxation on top of it all.
As the right hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) reminded us on a much earlier occasion, on Second Reading of the equivalent Bill in 1957,
It would have been much better if the Financial Secretary to the Treasury or the Chancellor himself introduced this Bill, because this is purely and simply a financial Measure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1957; Vol. 569, c. 998.]
She went on to complain in no uncertain terms of the impropriety of raising health contributions outside the spectrum of a wider social insurance provision.
No one can say that we did not do our best to please the right hon. Lady. On the next occasion that the Health Service contribution went up, in 1958, we brought it in as part of a wider raising of insurance contributions and a change in insurance generally. We tried to please her in that respect, and, in 1961, although this was a precisely similar Measure to the present Bill, raising the National Health Service contribution and nothing else, the Measure was introduced by my right hon. Friend the then Financial Secretary and the debate was replied to by my right hon. Friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The purpose of the Bill is to put up the National Health Service contribution. Why has not the Chancellor dealt with it? To all intents and purposes, it is just a method of raising tax. There is little doubt about that. Even the speeches of hon. Members opposite have made that clear. It can be justified in all sorts of ways, but that is its true nature. I much admired the Minister of State for his presentation of the case. He used arguments very similar to those which my right hon. Friend used, he produced similar figures, he concentrated on improvements rather than on the question of cost in much the same way. He showed—we all know it—that costs are rising, demand is unlimited, and resources are scarce.
At one point the hon. Gentleman brought a new element into the thinking of the party opposite, acknowledging that there always will come a time, as there always has come a time, when it is necessary to increase the flat-rate contribution. But he did not indicate--it was certainly not clear to me—why he thought that it was necessary now, and

why the Government have so far changed their basic thinking as to choose and perpetuate this method for Health Service finance.
Much as I respect the Under-Secretary of State, I wish that one of the Treasury Ministers was to wind up tonight. It would be a little harder for the Chancellor to make the claims he did about his Budget and the level of taxation, hut, no doubt, he would have got away with it, and a Treasury Minister could have given the answers to which the House is entitled.
I suppose that it is too much to hope that this Government will ever practise what they used to preach. All that seems to have gone by the board, in wages policy and in so many other things, including Health Service finance. But why abandon the concept of financing the Health Service increasingly out of general taxation, as the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) so eloquently pleaded; why abandon it just at the time when we have a large Budgetsurplus? It cannot be said that this method is necessary, unless the purpose be to divert the burden to the consumer because the surplus is required elsewhere. That is what it does; it is an indirect tax, a tax on the consumer which is concealed because it first goes on to the employer though inevitably thereafter it becomes a part of the costs forming part of our price structure.
I am well aware that the employer still carries a smaller burden in total contribution than does the employee. There have been several increases. as my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) and others of my hon. Friends pointed out in detail. In passing, I must say that it cannot be claimed that the selective employment tax is a direct tax. Any tax of that nature must inevitably work its way into the price structure.
The proposals in the Bill are part of a piecemeal turnover of taxation from various other forms to a form of indirect tax which operates initially through the employer. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) put it in proper context with the resit of taxation. There is no plan or principle here.
The Minister of State, the hon. Lady the Member for Halifax, and the hon.


Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) in an intervention, all referred to the fact that in other developed countries, notably in Europe and the Common Market, the share of social security tax and health tax paid by the employer is higher than it is in this country. But this is part of our main attack at this time. It is higher because it is part of a comprehensive system of social security tax fitted in with a tax pattern different from that which we have here, and fitted in in a way which does not muddle up insurance with tax, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) showed in his characteristic contribution. In the different countries, it is the social security tax or contribution to health, however it is classified, which is part of an entirely different pattern of taxing industry, a pattern which, incidentally, frequently includes the much discussed and much criticised tax on added value.
We could have had proposals before us forming part of a coherent planned reorganisation of tax and health and welfare finance, but here there is no such planned reorganisation. The party opposite is, therefore, to be criticised for so far departing from its basic principle for no apparently good reason. Not even the graduated contribution seems to fit in with any coherent pattern. It seems at best to perpetuate the errors of the past with a slightly altered bias, to perpetuate the confusion between tax and insurance, with the firm insistence that a graduated contribution must always produce a graduated benefit, leading to the ludicrous results which my hon. Friend pointed out.
This is no comprehensive plan. It is not even particularly original. These proposals are made without much thought for the increase in marginal rates of taxation and the disincentive effect of certain tax provisions, all of which have been referred to in the debate. One ought to have been able to expect better from this Government.
Hon. Members opposite, as they are entitled to do, ask what we would do instead. What would we do now? We should not have got into this mess. If we had found ourselves in this sort of

situation, we should, perhaps, have been able to use the surplus in the Budget. There is no need for the extra money for purposes of financing public spending, and it is both naïve and disingenuous for hon. Members opposite to pretend that in the circumstances of a Budget surplus increases in Government spending or improvements in the standard of facilities provided by public spending can he made only by an increase in taxation. There may he other reasons why a surplus is required, but extra tax is not required for extra Government spending. So the extra tax is required for other purposes.
Perhaps the Prime Minister was right in saying that it would not be the Labour Party's programme which required extra taxation. Perhaps he knew all along that it would be economic mismanagement which required a high level of taxation and a large Budget surplus to afford some means of attempting to control inflation and to deal with the problem of internal debt and, at the same time. the problems of money supply; in fact, the management of the economy, in which this Government have so lamentably failed.
I suppose that it is their failure, after their steadfast defence of their principles in the past, which entails this switch not only through an increase in the employer's contribution but through the use of the contribution at all as an integral and permanent method of financing the Health Service. I suppose that, that is why we shall see the Labour Party voting for an increase in the employer's contribution, when the general level of taxation has been raised more than enough, when charges are still on, and when prices are still rising. I never really thought that I should see that.
Now, a word about prices. In our debate on the Ways and Means Resolution some doubt was expressed about whether these proposals would be inflationary, or to what extent. The Minister of State appeared to say that it was so small a rise that it would be ineffective. The Secretary of State for Social Services does not quite agree with him, because in the debate on the National Insurance Bill, which took place in November, 1957, he made two comments which I think


are relevant to this Measure. Of the Health Service rise he said:
It will also destroy the actuarial basis of National Insurance. National Insurance used to be a tripartite scheme; it will now be a bipartite scheme, because it is to be paid for mainly by employers and employees.
I do not want to take up that point now.
He went on:
The employer will be able to pass his contribution on. It is therefore inflationary.
With that I agree. He added:
…the Government are putting nearly two bob on their contribution. It will be passed on in increased prices."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1957, Vol. 577, c. 1018-1019.]
Indeed, it is only one bob or perhaps five new pence under the new dispensation but it must inevitably, I think, still be passed on.
I think that if one looks back at all the fuss over prescription charges, the arguments and the rows upstairs, the resignations and the failures to resign, the speeches in the House, the votes and the failures to vote, one can really only marvel at the difference between past and present. The 1961 Bill in which we introduced a similar rise in the total National Health Service contribution was fought bitterly. An attempt was made in the early hours of the morning to adjourn for further discussion. There was a Closure at just on 5 a.m. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) wound up against such a barrage of interruptions that HANSARD for the debate looked like a report of Question Time. The debate on the Bill itself was preceded by a statement by my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Health announcing not only the contributions which were to be proposed in the forthcoming Bill but also some general increases in National Health Service charges. Despite what was said then, hon. Gentlemen who now form the Government have increased both charges and contributions.
In 1961 the contribution went up ls., and in 1970 it is still ls. although the proportions are slightly different. In 1961 we doubled the cost of amenity beds. I remember somewhat bitter arguments about the Labour Party's proposals to increase them. The charge for spectacles in 1961 went up by 5s. compared with a 3s. 6d. increase in 1969. The charge for dentures went up by between 5s. and 15s. in 1961 and by 25s. in 1969. Pre-

scription charges were up to the then record of 2s. in 1961, but in 1969 they went up to 2s. 6d. It was that modest increase—since matched by the present Government—that led the then Leader of the Opposition to refer to this combination which we introduced in 1961, and which the Government have since introduced in 1968, 1969 and 1970, as a
major assault on the National Health Service ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February 1961; Vol. 633, c. 994.]
and to give notice of tabling a censure Motion.
The right hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) called on the Minister of Health to resign—and I think the hon. Member for Willesden, West was among many who castigated my right hon. Friend for his surrender to the Treasury. The hon. Gentleman has continued to castigate his own Front Bench on suitable occasions with equal consistency, and it must be a little sad for him now to hear the Minister of State finally abandon the idea of a wholly tax-financed Health Service. I see that he accepts, although reluctantly, the concept of a contribution, and perhaps in due course he will come to accept prescription and other charges.
The Government have turned away from their tradition and have turned nothing to nothing. This is just a revamp of the original idea. They have apparently over the years learned nothing and forgotten nothing, except that sometimes the chickens do come home to roost and sometimes it is possible that even this Government cannot escape the fact that they are doing now just what they castigated others for doing in the past. They must bear the responsibility for a change of heart, a change which they have made so far without any explanation why they have abandoned what used to be one of their dearest and most closely-guarded principles.

6.55 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Brian O'Malley): We have now had two debates to examine the case for this Bill. This afternoon in his opening speech my hon. Friend the Minister of State met the questions which had been raised on the debate on the Ways and Means Resolution and gave the case for the Bill. There have been brief moments during the debate


when one thought that the Opposition were coming to the case against the Bill. But they have only been brief moments. It has certainly been a very wide-ranging debate. It has ranged through the£800 million deficit with which we were left in 1964 to the economic success story of the Government's policies and to the prospects for the next Election.
The debate for some hon. Members opposite was light-hearted. In particular, the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), spoke much of the time with a smile on his face, and one of the reasons was that he was presumably making a pre-election speech because he is worried at the latest trends in what is happening in the country and at the decreasing amount of support for his party.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State pointed out—this was recognised by every hon. Member who spoke—the problem of meeting the increasing cost of the health and welfare services. He pointed out the increased cost for hospital ser vices, for the maintenance of hospitals and for the welfare services throughout the whole of the country. Therefore, it is entirely legitimate and understandably right of the Government, at a time when the cost of the health and welfare services are rising and continuing to rise, should examine the present position and the present flat-rate contribution paid by both employer and employee.
I understand the points of view of my hon. Friends who have spoken from this side of the House when they said that they would have preferred that the whole of the cost should be met from the Exchequer. But without exception they realised the pressure on resources and accepted the principles underlying the increases contained in the Bill. It is the case that, while expenditure on the health and welfare services has been growing, the amount as a percentage which is being raised from the flat-rate contribution has fallen from 14·9 per cent. in 1962–63 to an estimated 8·9 per cent. in 1969–70.
Therefore, at a time when there is clearly pressure on resources for desirable Government expenditure, the Government were bound to lock at the short-term position before the introduction of the earnings-related system in the Bill which we are now discussing in Committee up-

stairs. Therefore, in the short-term we have taken an entirely reasonable step to make the transition from the existing flat-rate scheme towards the earnings-related scheme in terms of both yield and formula.
The Opposition say that they want an improved health service, that they want a larger proportion of the g.n.p. spent on it. It is a pity that they did not do more about this when they were the Government for 13 years. In 1951, when the Labour Government went out of office, 4·1 per cent. of the g.n.p. was spent on the health and welfare services. When we came back in 1964, that figure had hardly moved. It was back at 4·1 per cent. But during the 'fifties it had dropped to 3·5 per cent. The Opposition say that they want an improved health service and a greater proportion of the g n.p. spent on it, but they did not do anything about it. We are doing something about it. In 1963–64, 4·1 per cent. of the g.n.p. was spent on the health and welfare services. By 1969–70 that figure had gone up to 5·1 per cent.
Our record shows that we have used the resources available to advantage. In 1963–64 £56 million was spent on hospital building. In 1969–70 we spent about £120 million, more than double the previous figure. Between 1965 and 1969 35 new hospitals were completed, against only 15 in the previous 16 years. In 1964 there were only 30 health centres in operation. There are now 160. We have instituted a new charter for general practitioners, encouraging more capital and supporting staff. More than twice as many refresher courses are provided for general practitioners as were provided when we came to office. We have increased the intake of medical schools to provide the extra doctors who are needed in the hospitals, and we want to see the improvement carried on.
The Opposition say that they want improvements, but when we introduced a Bill to provide the resources that we need they seek to deny them to us by voting against the Bill. If the Opposition are serious about opposing the Bill, they should spell out in some detail what their alternatives are. It is no good the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) saying that they would have started not here but somewhere else. Not one serious alternative has been put forward.
The Opposition have a responsibility to tell us, whether they would put that increase on employees rather than on employers. I think that the noble Lord the Member for Hertford recognised—it is a pity that hon. Gentlemen opposite did not do something about it a long time ago—the inequity of the flat-rate system and the need for an earnings-related system. Hon. Gentlemen opposite did not recognise this before, but I think they do now. With an earnings-related system lower-paid workers will pay according to then ability to pay, instead of having to make what, for them, is a heavy flat-rate contribution. If we imposed a flat-rate contribution on employees the hardest hit would be the lower paid, the poorest section of the community, those about whom hon. Gentlemen opposite sometimes say they are concerned.
The Opposition, if they mean what they say, must put forward some kind of alternative. Would they put the increase on the employee instead of on the employer? Have they any intention of imposing massive new and extra charges? Hon. Gentlemen opposite talk about tax, and about using the Budget surplus. I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue). He knows that I have great respect for him. I know that part of his speech was lighthearted, knockabout, pre-election stuff. The hon. Member for Farnham is different. If I recollect correctly, he was at one time a Treasury Minister. He knows, as does every hon. Member, that a Budget surplus is an esssential tool of economic management, and one which any Chancellor must take into account.
Having said that they will oppose the Bill, the Opposition ought to put forward alternative suggestions, and it is interesting to look at the rag-bag of arguments which they have used to oppose this Measure. They say that it will put up prices. My hon. Friend the Minister of State dealt with that when he said that if the cost was fully passed on there would be an increase in prices of one-tenth of 1 per cent. Hon. Gentlemen opposite extol the virtues of competition. Are we to assume that they are saying—at least one hon. Gentleman did—that industry is unable to absorb any of this increase? The effect of the Bill will be to increase prices by 0·1 per cent. If hon. Gentle-

men opposite do not believe that, they had better let us know what alternatives they propose. They gave no estimates of their proposals.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite expressed concern about the lower-paid sections of the community and about those receiving supplementary benefits. They do not seem to recognise that the Budget will help a large number of lower-paid workers and people on low incomes. This increase of 0·1 per cent. has to be set against an increase in real terms of 20 per cent. in supplementary benefits and retirement pensions. The Opposition are on very weak ground, and are grasping at particularly pitiful straws, if that is the best argument that they can use.
The Opposition say that this increase will put an enormous burden on employers. One of the biggest burdens on employers, on British industry, and on the state of the economy is the number of days lost through sickness. I should have thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite would have recognised that anything which led to an improvement in the health service would be not a burden but a real help to employers.
Only one hon. Gentleman opposite, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington), saw nothing anomalous in a male employee paying 3s. 2d. a week while his employer pays 8d. An employer has a responsibility for, and an interest in, the health of his workers. I should have thought that no hon. Gentleman opposite could have suggested that the present situation was anything but an anomaly which ought to have been rectified years ago.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have not stressed the fact that in three-and-a-half years they were responsible for a 400 per. cent increase in employers' contributions. There has been no increase since 1961. The hon. Member for Farnham talked about the position in other countries. In the Netherlands, the employer pays 4·9 per cent., and Belgium 3·1 per cent. Compared with Continental practice, British employers are getting off lightly with their contribution.
It simply will not do to use the argument that our taxation system is different from that on the Continent. That argument is a minefield, and a difficult one to


get out of. Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not talk about the substantial financial assistance given to industry by way of investment grants, allowances and grants in aid to the development areas. The figures published by O.E.C.D. put the case advanced by hon. Gentlemen opposite in a very poor light. They show that in the United Kingdom current Government revenue is 37·4 per cent. of the g.n.p. This is almost identical to the figure for France and Germany, but lower than that for the Netherlands and Sweden.
The last complaint made by hon. Gentlemen opposite is that the proposed increase was not included in the Budget. There is no reason why it should have beeen. It was announced as long ago as January of this year, and the Ways and Means Resolution would have gone

through the House earlier than it did had it not been for the Opposition's wish. In doing what they did the Government were following the practice adopted by the party opposite in 1957, 1958 and 1961, when increases in the levy were announced before the Budget, although they came into effect afterwards.

To the question about what one proposes to do with the money, one naturally replies that it is to continue the improvements in the health and welfare services that the Labour Government have already made. I commend the Bill to the House as a measure to maintain the progress of the expanding health and welfare services.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 159.

Division No. 106.]
AYES
[7.8 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Dunnett, Jack
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Albu, Austen
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Eadie, Alex
Hynd, John


Allen, Scholefield
Edelman, Maurice
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur


Armstrong, Ernest
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)


Ashley, Jack
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Ellis, John
Janner, Sir Barnett


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
English, Michael
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Ennals, David
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Barnes, Michael
Faulds, Andrew
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Barnett, Joel
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Beaney, Alan
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Judd, Frank


Bidwell, Sydney
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kelley, Richard


Binns, John
Foley, Maurice
Kenyon, Clifford


Blackburn, F.
ford, Ben
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth Central)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Forrester, John
Kerr, Russell (Feitham)


Booth, Albert
Fowler, Gerry
Latham, Arthur


Boston, Terence
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lawson, George


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Gardner,Tony



Bradley, Tom
Garrett, W.E.
Leadbitter, Ted


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Ginsburg, David
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Brooks, Edwin
Golding, John
Lee, John (Reading)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George(Belper)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Lestor, Miss Joan


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)


Buchan, Norman
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lewis, Arthur (w, Ham, N.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Gregory, Arnold
Lipton, Marcus


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Lomas, Kenneth


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Luard, Evan


Carmichael, Neil
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Lubbock, Eric


Carter-Jones Lewis
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mabon Dr. J. Dickson


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hamling, William
McCann, John


Crawshaw, Richard
Harper, Joseph
MacColl, James


Cronin John
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
MacDermot, Niall


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Macdonald, A. H.


Dalyell, Tam
Haseldine, Norman
Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergien)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hazell, Bert
Mackie, John


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Heffer, Eric S.
Mackintosh, John P.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Hooley, Frank
McNamara, J. Kevin


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hooson, Emlyn
MacPherson, Malcolm


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Horner, John
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Dewar, Donald
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mallalieu,J,P.W.(Huddersfield,E,)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Marks, Kenneth


Dobson, Ray
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Doig, Peter
Howie, W.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Driberg, Tom
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Maxwell, Robert


Dunn, James A.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mendelson, John




Mikardo, Ian
Pavitt, Laurence
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Millan, Bruce
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Mitchell, R. c. (S'th'pton, Test)
Pentland, Norman
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Moonman, Eric
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Tinn, James


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Tomney, Frank


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Price, William (Rugby)
Tuck, Raphael


Moyle, Roland
Probert, Arthur
Urwin, T. W.


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Rees, Merlyn
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Murray, Albert
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Neal, Harold
Roberts, Gwllym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Newens, Stan
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wallace, George


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Norwood, Christopher
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Oakes, Gordon
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Weitzman, David


Ogden, Eric
Rose, Paul
White, Mrs. Eirene


O'Halloran, Michael
Rowlands, E.
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


O'Malley, Brian
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Oram, Bert
Sheldon, Robert
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Orbach, Maurice
Shinweli, Rt. Hn. E.
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Orme, Stanley
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Oswald, Thomas
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Short, Mrs. Renee(W'hampton.N.E.)
Winnick, David


Padley, Walter
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Woof, Robert


Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Sillars, J.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Paget, R. T.
Silverman, Julius



Palmer, Arthur
Slater, Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Small, William
Mr. Neil McBride and


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Snow, Julian
Mr. J. D. Concannon.


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Spriggs, Leslie





NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Farr, John
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Fisher, Nigel
Miscampbell, Norman


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Astor, John
Fortescue, Tim
Monro, Hector


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Foster, Sir John
Montgomery, Fergus


Awdry, Daniel
Frasar, Rt. Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Fry, Peter
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Gibson-Watt, David
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Balniel, Lord
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Neave, Airey


Batsford, Brian
Glover, Sir Douglas
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Glyn, Sir Richard
Nott, John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Goodhart, Philip
Onslow, Cranley


Biggs-Davison, John
Goodhew, Victor
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Grant, Anthony
Percival, Ian


Black, Sir Cyril
Grieve, Percy
Peyton, John


Blaker, Peter
Gurden, Harold
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Prior, J. M. L.


Body, Richard
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Braine, Bernard
Harvey, Sir Arthur Yere
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Brewis, John
Hawkins, Paul
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Higgins, Terence
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hill, J. E. B.
Ridsdale, Julian


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Holland, Philip
Royle, Anthony


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hornby, Richard
Russel, Sir Ronald


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Scott, Nicholas


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hunt, John
Sharples, Richard


Channon, H. P. G.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Silvester, Frederick


Chataway, Christopher
Iremonger, T. L.
Sinclair, Sir George


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Clark, Henry
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Clegg, Walter
Kershaw, Anthony
Speed, Keith


Cooke, Robert
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Stainton, Keith


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
King, Tom
Summers, Sir Spencer


Cordle, John
Kitson, Timothy
Tapsell, Peter


Corfield, F. V.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Costain, A. P.
Lambton, Antony
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lane, David
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Crowder, F. P.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Temple, John M.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Dance, James
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Tilney, John


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Turton, fit. Hn. R. H.


Dean, Paul
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Waddington, David


Doughty, Charles
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Walt, Patrick


Draysort, G. B.
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Walters, Dennis


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Ward, Christopher (Swindon)


Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Marten, Neil
Ward, Dame Irene


Errington, Sir Eric
Mawby, Ray
Weatherill, Bernard







Wells, John (Maidstone)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick



Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Woodnutt, Mark
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wiggin, Jerry
Worsley, Marcus
Mr. Jasper More and


Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Younger, Hn. George
Mr. Reginald Eyre.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Harper.]

Lord Balniel: May I ask why the Bill is being committed to a Committee of the whole House?

Mr. Ennals: We simply thought, in our wisdom, that it would be the wish of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase contributions payable by employers under the National Health Service Contributions Act 1965, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any resulting increase in the sums so payable under section 5 of the Act of 1965 on account of contributions in respect of persons treated as belonging to Northern Ireland or the Isle of Man.—[Mr. O'Malley.]

Orders of the Day — EQUAL PAY (No. 2) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 2

DISPUTES AS TO, AND ENFORCEMENT OF, REQUIREMENT OF EQUAL TREATMENT

7.20 p.m.

First Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mrs. Barbara Castle): I beg to move, Amendment No. 17, in page 4, line 12, leave out from ' years ' to ' before ' in line 14.
As those of us who have studied the Bill know, the Clause as it stands allows tribunals to award payments of arrears of remuneration or damages up to a maximum period of two years, where a women is found to have been entitled to equal pay, with discretion to award less than this maximum in certain cases. The Amendment has the effect of removing that discretion. I suggest that the Amendment is an act of unexampled fair-mindedness unequalled by any Government.
An identical Amendment was moved in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renee Short). It was discussed in Committee and negatived, and no promise was, therefore, made that we would reconsider the matter or bring it again before the House on Report. There was argument on what exactly would be the effect of the Amendment, and I am not sure that the hon. Lady herself was entirely clear.
Since then, we have been thinking about this again, on our own initiative, and have decided that it would be right not to give the tribunal discretion to award less than the two years' entitlement where it exists. In reaching this view we had in mind the maximum period of arrears laid down in the Bill, two years, is less than commonly applies in civil cases where payment goes back to six years. What is more, we think it undesirable to open the door to employers who might plead ignorance of the law as a reason for not introducing equal pay. This would be dangerous.
The effect of the Amendment is that, where a woman ought to have been re

ceiving equal pay, the tribunal must award arrears up to a maximum of two years from the date when she commences tribunal proceedings. I am sure the House will welcome the Amendment.

Mr. Philip Holland: I am not sure what is the distinction between the tribunal awarding up to a maximum of two years and having discretion to award two years or less?

Mrs. Castle: There was some confusion in Committee, and that is why I tried to make the effect of the Amendment clear. The period up to two years for which the woman will be entitled to arrears will depend on the length of the employment during which she has not been getting the equal pay to which she was entitled. That is why the words " up to a maximum " are used. She might, for instance, have been in the job only for the qualifying six months, or a year. If it is established that she was entitled to equal pay during that period, she must be awarded the arrears.

Mrs. Renée Short: I thank my right hon. Friend for making this concession. As she says, the Amendment was discussed in Committee and negatived; that does not mean that it was voted on and thrown out.
I was quite clear in my mind what I wanted the Amendment to achieve. I wanted to remove the arbitrary power given to the tribunal by the Bill as it stood to reduce the period as it saw fit. The Amendment means that the two-year period will not be altered, but that the tribunal will deal with every case on its merits. If the period of employment is less, that is all right. I see no reason why the tribunal should have power to reduce the period for its good reason which may not be to the advantage of the woman.

I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Albert Booth (Barrow-in-Furness): I beg to move Amendment No. 44, in page 4. line 16, leave out subsection (6).
My purpose in moving Amendment No. 44 is to attempt to ensure that the Secretary of State will define the meaning of subsection (6) before we complete


Report stage. The subsection appears to be capable of several interpretations. It would not be stretching the accepted meaning of the English language to suggest that the subsection could be read to mean that any employer called before a tribunal will be deemed to be guilty of having failed to comply with the requirements of the Bill unless he proves his innocence. In my wilder trade union optimism I first read the provision in that way, but in the cool light of dawn I thought that I ought to question that interpretation.
The second point that should be defined is what is meant by the first part of the subsection
 Where a question arises whether a woman is or has been given equal treatment with men…
Does this mean whenever a claim is brought before a tribunal? If that is so, the matter should be made clear, since it would follow that whenever a claim came before a tribunal the employer would have to prove that he is complying. Otherwise, it could be held that the question does not arise until some sort of prima facie case is established before the tribunal.
My third question involves whether the subsection is intended to define the grounds of a defence which the tribunal would have to accept and, if so, whether this is the only defence that could be accepted by the tribunal.
My last point relates to establishing whether the subsection could provide a loophole for an employer to enable him to pay considerably more to a male employee than a female employee on like work if he could show that there was any material difference whatever, other than a difference of sex, between the role of the woman employee and the role of the male employee. If that is the case, then the situation would be unsatisfactory for those who want to see the Bill work effectively. It would be better if the subsection were deleted from the Bill and we were merely to rely on the definition of equal pay in Clause 1. I hope my hon. Friend will be able to answer these queries.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Harold Walker): Here again this matter

was dealt with at some length in Committee and some of these matters were raised then by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth). I recall criticism of the opening phrase "Where a question arises…" on more than one occasion. In a later Amendment we have responded to these criticisms, and I will withhold until then my remarks on that matter.
I see from the proceedings in Committee that my contribution in elucidating the subsection was referred to by hon. Members opposite as an excellent explanation. I am not sure that I give frequent opportunity for such a comment, and I am now tempted to lean somewhat heavily on the remarks I made in Committee. However, I will eschew that temptation and will try, as briefly as I can, to explain the purposes of the subsection.
It is important to recognise that the opening phrase
Where a question arises whether a woman is or has been given equal treatment with men as required by an equal pay clause…
uses the words "equal treatment". It is not a question whether she has established that she is on the same or broadly similar work, or is entitled to parity of treatment under the equalisation provisions of the Bill. That has already been established before she goes to the tribunal.
The subsection deals with the situation that may arise where a woman, having established her claim for equal pay beyond any doubt, finds that there is still a material difference between her terms and conditions and those of the individual with whom she has been able to establish parity. In that situation because of payment links, length of service, payment of merit money and other additions to remuneration, there may be legitimate reasons for the difference. The subsection will enable the woman in those circumstances to go to the tribunal. It is for the employer in such a situation to show that the difference in pay arises from a genuine material difference between her case and theirs.
I hope that I have made it clear that the subsection is necessary to deal with a situation that could arise. To eliminate the subsection, as my hon. Friend suggests, would make nonsense of the Bill.


Without the subsection, men and women on the same job would have to get exactly the same rate of pay regardless of the factors to which I have referred —factors which often separate man from man in the same conditions of employment. In view of that explanation, I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Booth: By leave of the House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 4, line 16, leave out from first 'a' to end of line 20, and insert:
'woman ought to be or to have been given equal treatment with a man as required by her equal pay clause, and he enjoys or has enjoyed by comparison with her any greater remuneration or other advantage, then it shall be for the woman's employer to show that this advantage is not the result of his '.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that, with this Amendment, we take Opposition Amendment No. 19, in line 16, leave out 'question arises' and insert:
'prima facie case has been established before an industrial tribunal as to '.
and Government Amendment No. 20.

Mr. Walker: In replying on Amendment No. 44 I referred to the criticisms made in Committee of the opening words of the subsection as at present drafted. I gave an undertaking in Committee that we would look at these words to make them more clearly mean what I told the Committee they meant. I hone hon. Members opposite will accept that we have responded along the lines they suggested and have made the purpose of the subsection clearer by the addition of these words. Amendment No. 20 is a consequential Amendment.
To turn to the Opposition Amendment No. 19, this matter was dealt with at some length in Committee. I had hoped that the explanation I then gave made it clear that the question of whether a prima facie case had been established before the industrial tribunal dealt with a reerence was irrelevant and redundant. The prima facie case would have been established by virtue of the prior requirement for the woman to have established her claim for equal pay. The subsection

deals only with a situation where a woman having established her claim is not receiving equality.
Before entertaining a case under the subsection, it would appear that the tribunal would have to be satisfied that the claim for equal pay under the other provisions of the Bill had already been established. I do not wish to go over all the ground covered in Committee, but I shall listen with interest to see whether the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith) has any new arguments to cause us to look at the matter again.

Mr. Dudley Smith: We are always pleased to see improvements made to any Bill, particularly this Bill. I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman again for looking so considerately at the matter again, for taking the provision back and rewording the passage. Great objection was raised in Committee to the opening phrase "Where a question arises…" and am glad that the Government have removed that doubt. Their new drafting is clearer than was the previous one and is easier to interpret by those who will have to operate the Bill.
We still wish to put forward our own Amendment, Amendment No. 19, which has been allowed to be discussed with the Government Amendments. We believe that where possible there should be the utmost clarity in the Bill and that it should be spelled out to the individual. It is important that the provision should be clarified for the tribunal and those who appear before it, so that there should be a prima facie case established.
The object of our Amendment is to cut down on frivolous and malicious cases which might come before the tribunal, particularly in the early stages. Once this Bill is enacted I can foresee a whole rush of cases. I believe that the tribunals might be overburdened with cases. It is important that they should be able to select the wheat from the chaff and should not have great difficulty in deciding which cases need to be dealt with properly and which of them can be ignored.
Under the Bill an employer can be called upon to defend wholly unjustifiable and malicious charges. This would open up the opportunity to a small but significant minority of people, who could


be classed as mischief-makers, vexatious litigants, or someone with a grudge against an employer, to say, "I will take him before the Tribunal", thereby bringing about the opprobrium which would go with such an appearance, when in fact there was not a strong case on which to rest a claim. The employer would be placed in a difficult position.
I mentioned in Committee what happened in certain rent tribunals where feelings run very high indeed. In fact, pitched battles are fought out between one side and the other, and often the issue, whether the rent should or should not be reduced or a tenancy should or should not be preserved, is very much a side issue. We do not want these tribunals to become places where feuds can be fought out. We want them to be judicial in their approach. I believe that parties appearing before them, both employees and employers, should be seen in the same fair light by those who preside.
I realise that the Under-Secretary will not accept our Amendment, but I ask him to think again about it. There is still an opportunity, before the Bill becomes law, for him to consider whether he can go some way towards meeting us in establishing for the public at large that only genuine cases will be considered by the Tribunals. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) said last night on a previous Amendment, we believe it is very important that the individual should understand clearly where he stands and what the law is.

Mr. Keith Speed: I intervene briefly to reinforce what my hon. Friend has just said. We thank the Under-Secretary for the better clarification of the words.
On the question of prima facie,  I will not rehearse the arguments that I put in Committee. Suffice to say, everything that my hon. Friend has said about vexatious litigants and people who might wish to cause trouble by putting in frivolous or irrelevant claims is a possibility and the tribunals might be over-burdened by a large amount of work which would bring the whole system to a grinding halt.
If the Bill is to work we shall have to rely to a great extent on the good will of unions, of management, and, indeed,

of employees. If someone wishes to evade the provisions of the Bill, or any Bill—though the Bill is better through Amendments in Committee and on Report—there are various opportunities and channels through which evasions could be achieved. Therefore, it would be helpful, even at this late stage, if the Minister would consider again whether this point could be imported into the Bill.

Mr. Harold Walker: With respect and, I hope, with necessary courtesy, hon. Gentlemen opposite have not said anything new or in addition to the arguments that they deployed in Committee. I think that they still misunderstand the narrow purpose of this subsection. I am not sure that I would accept, but I could better understand, their arguments had they arisen under Clause 2(1), which deals with the broader front of access to the tribunals on the establishment of general claims for equal pay. However, this subsection deals only with the narrow area of possible claims before tribunals where claims have already been established to the same or broadly similar work. This subsection sharply narrows the possible scope for submission to the tribunal The only cases dealt with by the subsection will be those where, despite having established that case, a material difference in the conditions and terms of employment still exists. The tribunal will entertain a case under this subsection only where the claim for equal pay has already been established beyond any doubt.
7.45 p.m.
I have little or no experience of the operation of rent tribunals, so I will not venture an opinion about the case law with which they have to deal. However, in the broad sphere of industrial relations we might more appropriately draw parallels with and look forward to the kind of precedental behaviour of tribunals that are already established and operating. In general, our experience of the rules of procedure which determine the way that they carry out their business, together with their good sense and experience, shows that they do not waste time on claims where no prima facie case has been made out.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 20, in page 4, line 23, leave out "theirs" and insert "his".—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

Clause 3

COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS AND PAY STRUCTURES

Mr. Booth: I beg to move Amendment No. 46, in page 4, line 37, at end insert:
(2) A union shall have the right to refer a collective agreement made before the operative date which could continue to apply beyond the operative date to the Industrial Court at any time and on their doing so the Court shall state any amendments which will have to be made in the collective agreement to comply with the terms of this Act and as from the operative date the agreement shall operate as if these amendments were made.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment I have suggested that we take Amendment No. 47, in Clause 8, page 9, line 1, after subsection ',insert' (2) of section 3 and subsection '.

Mr. Booth: As the Bill stands, no collective agreements can be referred by a trade union to an industrial court before 29th December, 1975. Clearly, many collective agreements will be reached between now and December, 1975, many of which will continue to operate after that date. It would, therefore, be advantageous to ascertain, before December, 1975, whether these agreements will continue to be legal from date when the Bill becomes law.
I appreciate that there will be a right to a retrospective claim to the commencement date. However, it would seem to be a far better procedure, at the time of making a collective agreement, to have the ability to determine that it will be legal throughout the period of its operation. To do that I believe that it is necessary to have a provision whereby industrial courts can examine and decide. If that provision is made, it follows that the industrial courts should be able to state what amendments would be required, if any, to a collective agreement to make it comply with the requirements of the Bill and that, from the commencement date, those amendments should be made.
The procedure which the Amendment seeks to lay down will, I believe, commend itself to my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State for two reasons. I am certain that she is as keen as any hon. Member in this House to see the provisions of the Bill operating as quickly as possible. She would be among

the last to want a situation where there was considerable delay between the commencement date and the start of equal pay for men and women. The Amendment, if accepted, would enable that situation to be reached, or more nearly reached.
Another reason why I believe that the Amendment will at least be considered sympathetically by my right hon. Friend is because she recognises that, for the Bill to do the job that she wants it to do, trade unions must play a full part. his will give the trade unions something to do, between now and the commencement date, to ensure that from the commencement date equal pay is implemented Although I appreciate that this is an argument about the mechanics of the Bill rather than of principle, I believe that it is an important aspect of the mechanics of how we approach the implementation of equal pay.
The First Secretary has consulted the T.U.C. and I think she appreciates that the unions will, if given the chance, do far more as a result of this Clause than they would have done otherwise to achieve equal pay for many of their members. I hope that she will accept if not the exact words, the spirit of the Amendment and ensure that a Labour Government and the trade unions will implement equal pay as early as possible in as many cases as possible on the commencement date instead of leaving many claims to be made from after that date.

Mr. Holland: I have no strong objection to this proposal, but in spite of the careful explanation of the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), I cannot see why it is necessary. The Bill will not be published in 1975 but as soon as it reaches the Statute Book, when all those concerned will know its provisions. The Bill says that, after the operative date, there shall be no discrimination on grounds of sex alone in any collective agreement. It is surely not difficult for anyone concerned in an agreement, between the Bill reaching the Statute Book, which will be very shortly, and 1975 to see what his requirements will be and to avoid any such discrimination.
The only difficulty might arise over existing collective agreements, before people understood what was in the Bill,


where there may still be discrimination on grounds of sex—

Mr. Booth: Although I referred only to agreements made between now and the operative date, in fact the Amendments are designed to cover all existing agreements as well.

Mr. Holland: I was coming to this. There is nothing to stop parties to agreements made already which contain references to differentials on sex grounds; there is nothing to stop parties to those agreements knowing what is in the Bill and amending them to eliminate that discrimination at any time between now and 1975. It is only when the parties cannot agree, which would be very rare and only in marginal cases, because parties to an agreement are law-abiding, that in 1975 there may be a difference on a point of a contract on which they will go to the tribunal. But this will be a minority of cases. In most cases, all this will be ironed out without recourse to the tribunal. That is why I see no reason for this provision, although I have no rooted objection to it.

Mr. Frederick Lee (Newton): The cases which my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) has in mind may be a minority, but some cover huge numbers of women. I began arguing this case in Standing Committee and was ruled out of order because it was not in the Amendment. An illustration is the present three-year engineering agreement, which widened the gap between men's and women's rates. I know from contacts with friends in the union that it would not have been signed had they known that this legislation was coming. We agreed in Standing Committee that 1975 is not the beginning but the end of the operation. The operation begins at once.
A couple of days ago, at the meeting of the National Committee of the A.E.U., there was a motion to apply for a substantial wage increase. This was wrong, and to his very great credit, Mr. Scanlon said "No, we have signed for a period of three years. Therefore, we will honour that period." As the process will begin at once, there will be a number of applications to employers. Indeed, in some instances, probably, employers who are

willing to accept the principles of equal pay would feel bound by the three-year agreement signed not long before this legislation.
This is just one case, but it involves perhaps 100,000 or 200,000 women. My hon. Friend rightly said that such instances, which would certainly be illegal in 1975 but which can be discussed between trade unions and employers long before 1975, should not be held against them, because they were signed, for a period of three years, before this legislation. In that kind of case, whether the wording of the Amendment is acceptable or not, I am sure that my right hon Friend would want to feel that at least the principle should not be vitiated because an existing agreement still has some time to run.

Mr. Harold Walker: The argument deployed by the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) anticipates my point, but does not help me to resist the blandishments of my right hon. and hon. Friends. It is uncomfortable to agree with the Opposition in resisting one's own hon. Friends. We have said, and my hon. Friends have put it to us occasionally, that it is not the purpose of the Bill to do the job of the trade unions and make their rules unnecessary. There are to be five years between enactment and "E-Day". One would expect this to give plenty of time for industry to look not only at the new agreements but at the existing ones to see what revision is necessary to bring them into line with the requirements of the Bill.
One expects differences and disagreements. If we had not anticipated them, this provision would not have been necessary anyway. We do not expect them to be on any scale, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) has something when he talks about the wide coverage of some agreements, particularly in industries like engineering. I am familiar with the number of agreements which exist and perhaps, therefore, the size of the job which will face both employers and trade unions in scrutinising their agreements and making any necessary revisions to conform to the Bill.
I can understand the anxiety that there should be a maximum implementation immediately on E-Day, 1975, and the


minimum of disagreement. There may be an argument for getting some of the disagreements out of the way beforehand. I do not feel that we can or should go all the way with the Amendment, but we should be prepared to consider giving the Industrial Court the opportunity to consider some of these agreements before the date of implementation, 1975. The appropriate period might be 12 months beforehand. We ought to be prepared to give consideration to provision for access to the industrial court by the parties to agreements during the last 12 months immediately preceding implementation so that some of the disagreements which may exist can be got out of the way with a view to making implementation as smooth as possible by 1975.
I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Booth: In asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, may I say how much I appreciate the way in which the Under-Secretary has responded? He has made a genuine attempt to meet the need in those cases where trade unions and employers cannot agree. It is by no means impossible for such cases to arise and we should have the maximum amount of implementation on E-Day.

In view of what my hon. Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move Amendment No. 22 in page 6, line 15, after 'generally', insert:
'known or open to be'.

Mr. Dudley Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be convenient to take at the same time Amendment No. 21: In page 6, line 15, leave out 'generally known by' and insert 'published to'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I apologise. That was Mr. Speaker's selection and that will be in order.

Mr. Walker: These Amendments are addressed to the same point.

In Committee hon. Members opposite criticised the definition of a pay structure in Clause 3(6):
any arrangements adopted by an employer (with or without any associated employer) which fix common terms and conditions of employment for his employees or any class of his employees, and of which the provisions are generally known by the employees concerned.
It was argued that it would be difficult to establish whether or not such provisions were generally known. I undertook to look again at these words, and as a consequence we have put forward our Amendment. I hoped that this would meet the point of view of the Opposition, but hon. Members opposite have repeated the Amendment they proposed in Committee. Both Amendments seek to ensure that the provisions shall be generally known by the employees concerned, but this would be a difficult question of fact to decide.
We see some difficulties in the phrase "published to". It seems obscure in this context and may be thought to carry a suggestion of circulated documents which may not exist in all employments. The phrase we have chosen would be more effective and is preferable—
open to be known by the employees concerned.
This allows for all the possible ways in which employees can inform themselves or he informed of details of a pay stricture.
I hope that the Opposition will be prepared to withdraw their Amendment and support the one we have tabled in seeking to meet the point of view they expressed in Committee.

Mr. Dudley Smith: This Amendment is some improvement on the previous position, but it still does not go far enough. The more one reads the Bill the more is one amazed by the mystifying phraseology of some of its provisions. It is true that it is now being tightened up, and the Under-Secretary has been generous in reconsidering a number of suggestions which were put to him. I hope that there will opportunity for further tightening up of the provisions when the Bill reaches another place. Otherwise, I am afraid it will become a kind of lawyer's benefit Bill and will have a number of loopholes in it which we do not want.
It was in a spirit of helpfulness that we put forward our Amendment in Committee and place it before the House now. The new phraseology would make the provision read:
generally known or open to be known".
That is an improvement, but we think the words, "published to" are more satisfactory.
The words "generally known by" were described by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) as incredibly vague. They are open to the widest interpretation or to no interpretation at all. Who can say that the arrangements adopted by a particular employer are generally known? I favour the widest possible communication of terms and conditions for employees by employers. This is very much part of my party's industrial relations policy which in due course will be implemented. There is common ground between us that there should be the fullest information for each employee. If we spell it out in the Bill in this way the employee will be in no doubt about his rights.
In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell) asked how and by what means was this to be generally known? Would it be put on the notice board of a canteen, or distributed in some way? if we say "published to" there will be a definite advantage. I believe the Under-Secretary is not going to give way, but I ask him to look at this once more because our proposal would help the employee to know exactly where he stands.

Mr. Harold Walker: I have not been convinced either that the Opposition have used stronger arguments than they used in Committee or that they have employed new ones to persuade us from the attitude we adopted in Committee. I rather hoped that they would accept that we sought to meet their point. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudly Smith) admitted that we have gone a long way to meet it. I hoped that, albeit reluctantly, they would accept our Amendment.
If we incorporated the Opposition Amendment, first, it would not oblige an employer to publish when he does not do so already. Secondly, there are difficulties because many small employers

have arrangements which are of a loose character and they do not generally publish them in any form. We tend to think in terms of large employers, but the Bill is also applicable to small ones. The proposition made by the Government would meet all the cases that are likely to arise.

Mr. Helland: Would not the Under-Secretary agree that a notice put on a notice board is publication? That is what we had in mind when using the phrase "published to" Even the smallest engineering workshop has a notice board. It would be an easy matter for the employer to put a notice on the board.

Mr. Walker: I should like to think that all employers have a notice board, but I am afraid that that conflicts with my industrial experience. An employer who perhaps has a couple of lorries and a small business may have a very loose kind of arrangement.

Mr. Speed: Surely there is a statutory legal requirement that notices relating to the Factories Acts and the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act have to be displayed by employers?

Mr. Walker: The requirements in the Bill go far beyond those concerning premises covered by the Factories Acts or the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4

WAGES REGULATION ORDERS

Miss J. M. Quennell: I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 6, line 31, after 'instrument', insert:
'coming into operation not later than five months after the date of the Court's decision'.
Subsection (1) says:
Where a wages regulation order made before or after the commencement of this Act contains any provision applying specifically to men only or to women only, the order may be referred by the Secretary of State to the Industrial Court
for a declaration as to the amendments required to it under Clause 3 to eliminate discrimination, and, when the court has decided what amendments are required, the Secretary of State can make an order giving effect to the amendments.
None of this is mandatory upon the Secretary of State of the day. Where a Secretary of State of the day observes that a wages regulation order infringes the principles in the Bill, there is no obligation upon him to take any action. He may refer the matter to an Industrial Court, but he does not have to do so. Even when the court has declared what amendments are necessary, the Secretary of State still does not have to make an order giving effect to those Amendments: the Secretary of State may, but he may also be idle.
Secretaries of State can find it politically expedient to appear to be active, to give all the appearance of bustle, with the effect of sloth. I do not impute sloth to the right hon. Lady. She is a most energetic Secretary of State. As the Bill is drafted, a Secretary of State could send a wages regulation order, or orders galore, to an Industrial Court and then conveniently forget to follow up the court's finding.
One of the more interesting features of the Bill is that an order made by the Secretary of State requires the approval of both Houses of Parliament. The Bill will not become fully effective until 1975 at the earliest. Some hon. Members will not be here then. None of us now here can or ought to think that we can judge all the circumstances of the House in 1980 by the standard of 1970. Imagine, for example, the discussions that could take place between the Patronage Secretary of that day and the Leader of the House of that day to find parliamentary time to discuss an order with perhaps an obstructive but tiny minority determined to hold up business for reasons totally unrelated to the principle of equal pay, each side conscious of a Paisley shawl about their shoulders. What an inducement to lethargy upon the part of any Secretary of State of days to come.
Clause 5 evisages a completely different procedure for dealing with agricultural orders: there is to be a time limit of five months between the court's declaration and the final amending order, within which the declarations of the court must become effective. It does not require much action on the Secretary of State's part.
There is no logical reason why agricultural workers should be so particularly

favoured. After all, the Bill is concerned with the abolition of discrimination. Let us not have discrimination between Clauses in the Bill itself. What is sauce for Clause 5 is equally sauce for Clause 4, especially as far greater numbers of people will be affected by Clause 4 than will be affected by Clause 5.
That is the background against which I move the Amendment. It is illogical that one Clause imposes a specific time limit and allows little latitude for a future Secretary of State, whereas the provisions of Clause 4(1), which affects many more men and women, are mandatory and there is no time limit.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Harold Walker: I shall try to earn the gratitude of the House by making what I hope will be the shortest speech of the day and of the hon. Lady by telling her that, although I have some strong reservations about some of her arguments, we are none the less prepared to accept the Amendment.

Miss Quennell: I rise almost speechless with gratitude to thank the Under-Secretary for his courtesy and understanding. I regret that my argument did not have quite the force that perhaps it should have done, but I am delighted at its effect.

Amendment agreed to.

Miss Quennell: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 6, line 37, leave out 'majority of those' and insert 'member or'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that with this Amendment we discuss Amendments Nos. 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29.

Miss Quennell: Hon. Members who contributed to yesterday's interesting and thorough debate will be familiar with the Clause, which in Committee did not receive such a thorough examination as some of the earlier Clauses. The deliberations on this Clause are contained in approximately two columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings. The powers the Clause confers upon the Secretary of State of the day were not referred to on Second Reading.
The Clause means that an individual will not be entitled to ask the Secretary of State to approach an Industrial Court


to consider the question of any amendment to the W.R.O. Only when a majority on a wages council representing either the employers or the employees so requests is it mandatory upon the Secretary of State to refer an order to the industrial court.
The Amendments are designed to enable an individual worker to move a reference of the order to the court. I hope that I can persuade the Under-Secretary of State's warm heart to beat a little faster once again on this Amendment. The Amendment would confer a greater strength on women workers, who are in any case in a minority. As the Bill stands, they will be in a weak position when it comes to operating its provisions. I am sure that that was not the intention of the draftsmen, who must be commended on having made the Bill as clear as they have. It is a difficult Bill to draft. Some of us still think that it could perhaps be a little clearer.
The hon. Gentleman will agree that most of us look forward to the hereafter, when we shall be able to have a direct word with the Almighty about one or two little things we have noticed here. I would like to see employees, male and female, able to have a direct word with the Minister in the present, while they are still around. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look as favourably on this group of Amendments as he did on the last Amendment.

Mr. Harold Walker: I will try to surpass my previous performance. If I gave the hon. Lady pleasure then, I am sure that she has good reason for delight now in that she has not only brought off a double but has killed six in one go this time. I am prepared to accept the whole batch of her Amendments as a measure of her persuasiveness.

Mr. Robert Carr: We must be making history. Never before can an Opposition have put forward such good Amendments so persuasively, or the Government been in such a reasonable mood to listen to them. We should like to mark our gratitude.

Miss Quennell: I thank the Under-Secretary of State. I had no idea that I was quite so good at skittles. I have a nasty feeling that there is probably a

live pig as first prize to take home tonight.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 25, in page 6, line 38, after 'who', insert 'was or who'.

No. 26, in page 6, line 40, leave out 'majority of those' and insert 'member or'.

No. 27, in page 6, line 41, after 'who', insert 'was or who'.—[Miss Quennell.]

Clause 5

AGRICULTURAL WAGES ORDERS

Amendments made: No. 28, in page 8, line 7, leave out 'majority of the' and insert ' member or '.

No. 29, in page 8, line 7, leave out 'majority of the' and insert 'member or'.—[Miss Quennell.]

Clause 6

EXCLUSION FROM SS. 1 TO 5 OF PENSIONS ETC.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The next Amendment selected is Amendment No. 48, with which we may discuss Amendment No. 49, in page 8, line 32, leave out subsection (2).

Mr. Booth: I beg to move Amendment No. 48, in page 8, line 27, leave out from 'matters)' to end of line 31.
The Amendment seeks to remove from the Bill that part which excludes pensions from those factors to be covered in determining equal remuneration.
I am not unappreciative of the tremendous difficulties raised by the question of pensions in connection with the determination of equal pay. Knowing how keen my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to achieve complete equality of remuneration for men and women, I feel certain that she will not resent the Amendment in so far as it tries, even at this late stage, to deal with what is still a very difficult problem. I am sure that if there had been a simple way to define equality of treatment of men and women in receipt of pensions it would already be in the Bill. Therefore, I do not suggest that the Amendment is a complete solution. It is


something on which to hang a very serious attempt to deal with this very serious problem in the legislating of equal pay.
In spite of the difficulties of amending the Bill so as to cover the question of pensions properly, we must try to achieve such a definition. If we fail to reach a definition on this question, we must inevitably leave open the door to those employers—and I do not say that they are a majority—who would wish to compensate a man to a far higher degree than a woman for equivalent work by giving that man much more favourable pension conditions. If it were possible for that to happen after the Bill comes into effect, I am sure that the legislation of equal pay would not have achieved the end my right hon. Friend wishes.
We must first agree those aspects of pensions where there must inevitably be a difference between men and women. First, there is the difference in the statutory age of retirement. The Bill does not make the retirement age the same for men and women. Therefore, in trying to define what is a proper and equal approach to pensions as between men and women, we must recognise that statutory difference.
Second, there is the question of the life expectancy of men and women. Unless we can include within the definition a recognition of the differences of payment of pension in relation to life expectancy, we cannot create a proper basis of equality.
There are two fields in which I feel we can define very clearly certain aspects of treatment of men and women in which we could expect complete equality. The first is an equal entitlement and eligibility to become a member of an industrial pension scheme appropriate to the grade of employment concerned. That is, we can ensure that men and women have equal opportunity to join a pension scheme for the grade or class of work in which they are engaged. We cannot, of course, ensure that they will pay the same contribution or receive the same pension per year, but we can achieve a fair definition of entitlement and eligibility to become a member.
Second, we should also enshrine within legislation the right to contribute on an equal basis. If there is to be equal pay,

there can also be an equal ability to pay contributions to receive certain benefits.
I know that the General Council of the T.U.C. has carefully considered those two points, and I believe that it has raised them with my right hon. Friend. I feel sure that she will bend over backwards to meet the General Council on this point, because I am sure that that is what she wants to do. I am confident that, with reasonable co-operation between those with experience in this matter and my right hon. Friend and her fellow members of the Government, and the desire to bring this about, if my Amendment cannot be accepted at least its purpose can be carefully re-examined before the Bill goes on to the Statute Book.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Holland: When I read the Amendment, I was rather pleased because, in view of the prevailing harmony and light existing on the Bill, I thought that it would give me the opportunity to support the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth). But, having heard his argument, I am in the somewhat difficult position of wanting to support the Amendment still but of being opposed to some of the things he said about it. However, my view is entirely in accordance with the proposed deletion of these words in the Bill. I feel that there is no reason why we should not have equality between the sexes for the purposes of pension funds and so on. Yet I do not think that his arguments on that proposition necessarily hold up.
I think that benefits and contributions should not have any distinction or differential as between men and women. There should be differences, of course, in relation to the ages of retirement, but that in itself is not necessarily an issue between men and women. A man who chose to retire at 60 would have to pay higher contributions or receive lower benefits. A woman would be in the same boat. If either wanted to stay on until 65, he or she would pay the same rate of contributions and get the same benefits.
It is sometimes argued that a man has dependent relatives and if he wants to make partial provision for them he takes a smaller benefit himself. But many women have dependent relatives as well


and want to do the same thing. Why not, therefore, have the same provision for men and women for variation of provision, depending on requirements or benefits of the individual, irrespective of whether that individual is a man or a woman? This is why I take issue with the hon. Gentleman on some of the things he said, though certainly not on his Amendment.
When I first read the Amendment and when he started to move it, I thought that I could obtain absolution from him for opposing his last Amendment by supporting him on this one. I am still inclined to support him on the Amendment. I am being consistent in this because I made the same point on Second Reading. I support him in asking the right hon. Lady to look at this proposal because, the more we can reduce the differences which exist, the better is the chance of doing what she wants to achieve with the Bill—the removal of all discrimination so far as humanly practicable.
I accept that obviously there have to be certain differences, but unless there is some basic reason for a difference, let us throw out all the other differences and have absolutely no restriction in the terms and conditions of employment, in which pension rights are a major matter. I support the Amendment and I hope that the right hon. Lady will smile favourably on the hon. Gentleman as she has done this evening on some of us on this side of the House.

Mrs. Castle: I am grateful for the spirit in which my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) moved the Amendment. I perfectly understand his motives and sympathise with his aims. Indeed, I said on Second Reading that, on the face of it, it seems entirely right that any provisions for equal pay should cover pensions as well. But I also went on to point out that, as far as I am aware, no other country has included pensions in its equal pay legislation. The reason for this, I think, is that this is another of those issues which seem deceptively simple but in which the process for securing equal treatment is highly complex.
I am sorry that this point was not discussed in Committee because no Amendment to this effect was put down there.

That is a pity. Here we are, with a very small House, at a late stage in the Bill, raising points of major complication in the legislation. I want to stress the complexity strongly. I think that perhaps we should have taken a whole morning in Committee on an Amendment such as this in order to probe all the implications.
In all friendliness and sincerity I say to my hon. Friend that, although he showed an appreciation of the complexities of the problem, he did not, in moving the Amendment, fully probe all the implications. He admitted that the Amendment does not begin to face the issues. He was perfectly genuine about that when he said that the Amendment would not be a complete solution. But I shall not try to fault him on technicalities. I want to point out to him, however, that, if the Amendment were accepted, there would be a total policy vacuum in relation to the pensions aspect.
My hon. Friend made two suggestions. All we would have if we removed this qualification for equal treatment would be a position in which a woman would be able to go to a tribunal and claim that she had not been given her pension rights. No one, however, would have defined what those rights should be. She would be given the right to join a pension scheme, but it would be the existing scheme. Yet, as we know, the existing schemes in which women at present are not participating do not cover women. They are based by definition on length of service, retirement age, family responsibilities and life expectancy of men.
They are masculine features. As my hon. Friend fairly admitted, there are differences of requirement in pension treatment between men and women. Any sensible scheme would have to pay regard to those differences. This brings me to what is not merely a technicality on the Amendment. We cannot begin to decide even the principle of including this in the Bill until we have decided who should examine the existing schemes and who should decide what is equal treatment under a pension scheme.
If we are to give a woman the right to go to a tribunal and enforce her pension rights, we would have to decide among ourselves what we thought those pension rights should be or, at any rate, identify the person who shall decide what those


pension rights should be. The tribunals will enforce specific rights. Who should decide? I want to put this seriously to my hon. Friends. Should it be my Department? If so, this is a most revolutionary suggestion to make at this stage of the Bill when it has not even been discussed in Committee. No government have ever dictated the terms of occupational pension schemes. It would be a major innovation.
Secondly, who should enforce this? The tribunals? I suggest that it is inconceivable that the sort of tribunals we are to set up under the Bill to adjudicate on whether a woman has her rights are the appropriate bodies to evaluate equal treatment in the pension sphere.
My hon. Friend argued cogently yesterday for less legalistic tribunals, for ones taken from industry, reflecting the practical experience of the shop floor. This is a highly technical area. It would be necessary for us to enforce women's rights under this heading by special adjudication undertaken by people with the necessary special expertise. I mention this because it is this kind of practical difficulty which has inhibited me from obeying my natural instincts and including pensions in the Bill. I am sure my hon. Friend realises that we are far from clear in our own minds as to which items in a pension scheme should he equalised. He referred, for instance, to the difficulties of equalising the age of retirement.
The T.U.C. in the document that we have all been quoting from, the one that has gone before the women's conference, has specifically dodged the issue. What it says is that where men and women retire at the same age, the pension should also he equal. I do not think that any of us would disagree with that but where do men retire at the same age as women? In how many occupational schemes in this country? The figure is absolutely negligible, if not non-existent.

Mr. Holland: The point is that if the reason for either higher contributions or smaller benefits is due to the early retirement of an individual, it is not on grounds of sex and, therefore, admissible—

Mrs. Castle: I agree that there can be permutations and combinations which might be different in different schemes.

Are we to lay down the laws in this House through this Bill? That is what I am asking. Suppose that we were to say that we accept that women should retire at the age of 60. That means either that their pensions would be smaller or their contributions greater, to get equality. I ask: by how much should the pension be smaller or the contribution greater to meet the definition of equality of treatment?
I quote this merely to show the complexity of making progress here. There are other difficulties. The T.U.C. says that it is impracticable to suggest that pension amounts should be equalised. I do not see why that should be any more impracticable than some of these other problems. The T.U.C. then refers to the point which my hon. Friend has raised. He said that he recognised that there were difficulties in getting complete equality of treatment but thought that there were two areas in which we could expect completely equal treatment. I think that 1 am quoting him accurately. First he said was equal entitlement and eligibility and secondly the right to contribute on an equal basis. I want to ask my hon. Friend a question that neither he nor the T.U.C. has answered. We are talking about rights but in a vast majority of occupational pension schemes equality of pension treatment would not mean the right to join but the obligation. In the vast majority of schemes, a chap has no choice. Schemes would not work if one could opt in and opt out. It is a condition of employment. The House would not wish to legislate for equality of treatment and then say that men have to join but women can pick and choose.

8.45 p.m.

Is my hon. Friend asking us to impose an obligation on all women workers in a factory where there is an occupational pension scheme to join that scheme? Have we consulted enough? Have we thought it through? It is conscription we are talking about, not voluntary membership. The subject bristles with complexities.

Mr. Tom Boardman: I do not often come to the right hon. Lady's support in these matters, but there is a further point which she might have in mind. An occupational pension


scheme, being funded and depending on contributions throughout service, presents a particular problem. If we suddenly made pension benefits equal, there would be a large uncontributed liability in respect of past service. This is a further problem which creates difficulty.

Mrs. Castle: I assure the House that I have given a lot of thought to this matter. My hon. Friend was quite right: my whole instinct is to include this in legislation. But I have had to face all these complexities, and not least the practical fact that under the Government's new national superannuation scheme we are about to impose a new range of rights and obligations on women in relation to pensions which will prove a financial burden to some of them.
Are we satisfied that it would be right to say tonight, even in principle, that we have decided to put another obligatory burden, through this Equal Pay Bill, on women who are only just facing up to the realisation that to secure greater equality under a national superannuation scheme they will have to meet additional burdens?

Mr. Booth: I apologise for not making this point clear in moving the Amendment. My suggestion is that the same options should be open. If it is a condition for a man in a certain job it should be a condition also for a woman, and if it is regarded as oboxious to conscript women, it should be regarded as obnoxious for men.

Mrs. Castle: My hon. Friend is honest and logical, but this question has been confused by the use of the words " right ", " eligibility " and " entitlement ". If my hon. Friend had said, " I want to place a statutory obligation on women working in factories where there is an occupational pension scheme to join that scheme ", I imagine that the reaction of the House—and, perhaps, for all I know, of the T.U.C.—might be different.
I do not want to detain the House further. Obviously, we cannot tonight come to a decision on an issue of this far-reaching importance. I can, however, give my hon. Friend this assurance. I had another letter from the T.U.C. only a few days ago asking that this

matter might be reconsidered in the sort of terms my hon. Friend indicated. I am prepared to have another talk with the T.U.C., but it must be understood by the House that that is without any commitment on my part that I shall find it possible to promote an Amendment in another place. I can give no commitment that I shall not at the end of that further discussion find insuperable the sort of difficulties which I have outlined in relation to the Bill. That does not mean that the door is closed for all time.
This is a very late stage to attempt something in present legislation. There would have to be far-reaching Amendments on adjudication and so forth. I cannot give any commitment about being able to amend the Bill, but I give an undertaking that I shall have another discussion with the T.U.C., putting to it the sort of points which I have put to the House, to see whether there may be anything which we could do in the Bill, without going as far as some of my hon. Friend's proposals would take us. I hope that the House will agree that that is a fair way to leave the matter at this stage. We are not, after all, concluding, with this Bill, all the battles for equality for women. We are only starting them.

Miss Quennell: I intervene briefly to ask the right hon. Lady whether she would have a sufficient staff of experienced actuaries in her Department to enable her to advise the councils arising from the consequences of the Amendment. One will only get equality of pensions in an actuarial sense and, therefore, the right hon. Lady will require actuaries. How many actuaries has the right hon. Lady tucked away under the table in her Department?

Mrs. Castle: There is obviously actuarial advice available to the Government as a whole. Quite clearly, other Departments are interested in the point raised by the Amendment. I repeat that discussions have gone on between Departments on whether it is possible to include pensions in the Bill and we have become bogged down in these difficulties. I repeat my offer to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth). I shall certainly talk about it with the T.U.C. again without commitment, and I hope that in the light of that


my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. R. Carr: I agree with the right hon. Lady that it is obvious that we cannot come to a decision tonight. I agree with her, for example, that if we were simply to accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendment we should leave, as she put it, a total policy vacuum in the pensions field. Quite apart from that, it is also obvious that we have not yet given the matter enough thought to know what we would put into that vacuum. It is clear, therefore, that more thought is necessary.
The right hon. Lady almost chided the Committee—in the nicest way—for not having probed this enough in Committee. As it is the Opposition's job to probe in Committee stage, I take the chiding. But let me assure the right hon. Lady that I shall make quite sure that we do not make a similar mistake—because in the late Clauses hon. Members can get exhausted—and that there will be no such error in the late Clauses of the C.I.M. Bill which we have recently begun discussing.
Returning to the Amendment, the right hon. Lady said that she sympathises with its aim. So do I. The difficulties are admitted, and they are great, but I am sure that one day they must be overcome. I believe that the difficulties arise much more from past custom, practice and convention than from real difficulties. That means that because of the nature of pension schemes the difficulties, even when we see how to overcome them, cannot be overcome on anything like the time scale upon which equal pay can be achieved. That has to be admitted.
What I am nervous about—this is no party point—is that we all know in this House that when we have had a Bill on one subject it may be a very long time, whichever Government is in power, before we have another Bill on the same subject. I am nervous that if we let this Bill get on the Statute book it may be a long time before we make a begin-

ning on the subject again. This is the trouble with a difficult problem, particularly one which is enshrined in custom, convention and practice, and there is a considerable amount of inertia to overcome before one can get down to a solution. I have a hankering for getting into this Bill somehow before we leave it some Clause—even if it is only an enabling Clause without dates fixed—which is both a prod and a power to a future Secretary of State to get this going without the whole paraphernalia of complete new legislation. We cannot do it in this place, but there are occasions—I shall not be controversial about this—when another place is valuable.
We cannot ask the right hon. Lady to make a commitment. She has said that she will think about it, and I am sure that she will. I ask her to bear in mind that if we do not have something in the Bill, even if it is rather indefinite, without a fixed date, something which is an enabling power, we may be leaving a vacuum, in a different sense from the way in which she used the word, and one which will not be filled for far too long.

Mr. Booth: In view of the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend to discuss this matter with the T.U.C. without any commitment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8

COMMENCEMENT

Mrs. Renee Short: I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in line 6 leave out from ' order ' to ' provide ' in line 7.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we are to take the following:

Amendment No. 32, in line 9 leave out from ' require ' to end of line 10.

Amendment No. 33, in line 19 at end insert:

(3) Any order under subsection (2) above shall provide, in respect of rates of pay, that the rate to be paid to a person in accordance with the term referred to in section 1(2) or (3) above shall be not less than nine-tenths of the rate paid to those with whom comparison is required by that term; but the fraction specified by the order may be greater than nine-tenths.

As Amendments to the proposed Amendment No. 33:

In line 1, leave out ' Any' and insert ' An '.

In line 1, after order ', insert shall be made '.

In line 1, after above ', insert:

' to come into operation on 31st December 1973 '.

The only Amendment selected for Division, other than the Government Amendment, is No. 31.

Mrs. Renée Short: This Amendment and No. 32 are similar to Amendments which I moved in Committee. They would give more power to my right hon. Friend to make Orders at any time, instead of being tied to the time limit written into the Clause as it stands. If the Amendments in Committee had been carried—which, unfortunately, they were not—they would have had the effect of bringing the operative date forward to 1972 from 1975.
An Amendment to that effect, No. 30, stands inviolate upon the Notice Paper. Unfortunately, it was not selected by Mr. Speaker, and we cannot discuss it. I suppose, therefore, that I am out of order in mentioning it, but I regret that we are not to have an opportunity to discuss it.
Regretting, as I do, that it is not possible to bring the date forward to 1972—unless this part of the Bill is amended in the other place—and that the operative date is to remain at December, 1975, I consider it essential that my right hon. Friend should have the power to make these Orders as and when she feels they are necessary, instead of being tied to the time-table in the Clause.
We know that millions of women will benefit when the Bill becomes an Act. I give three cheers for the fact that this Measure is soon to pass into law. The fact that we are making good progress with the Bill will provide a spur and encouragement to both trade unions and employers to see that orderly progress is made towards the implementation of equal pay even before the due date. Nevertheless, there is always the risk that some employers will not implement equal pay in the spirit intended by the House, but will drag their feet and create difficulties and obstacles. It is for this reason

that my right hon. Friend should have the power to make these Orders if she feels that it is essential to do so.
We know that many trade unions have had their minds concentrated in an interesting way on the need to implement equal pay. We know that the T.U.C. passed a magic resolution in 1888, but it has taken us a darned long time to get to where we are tonight. However, we know that some trade unions are concentrating on the need to implement equal pay, and that the tobacco workers' union, U.S.D.A.W., the General and Municipal Workers Union, and the A.E.F., to mention only a few, intend to discuss equal pay at their annual conferences this year. That is splendid. I hope that the unions will get a move on and will include in the collective agreements which they negotiate the principles enshrined in the Bill; that is, the abolition of the women's rate and the need to bring it up to the equivalent men's rate. There is nothing to prevent the trade unions from going forward on these lines.
If my right hon. Friend will accept Amendments No. 31 and 32 she will have the power to survey the land as it lies and be able to take such action as she thinks fit when she feels it is necessary to do so. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be as nice to me as he was to the hon. Member for Peters-field (Miss Quennell), so as to show no discrimination between lady Members on opposite sides of the House, and that he will make a short speech saying that he accepts the Amendments.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Harold Walker: My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renee Short) knows that I would never be other than nice to her. I have tried to be nice to her throughout our proceedings, and I have made some nice concessions to her. She referred to hon. Ladies sitting on opposite sides of the House, and I am glad that she has taken to heart the point I made on Second Reading about the distinction between skirts and trousers. I compliment her on her appealing attire this evening.
My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that my arguments tonight will not be very different from those I used in Committee, and that our attitude has not substantially changed over the intent


that lay behind the Amendments which she moved in Committee. The effect of those Amendments would not have been what she sought to achieve, whereas Amendment No. 33 gives effect to those intentions.
We resisted the provision of an intermediate stage because we took the view that employers, in conjunction with the unions, should have freedom in working out arrangements for introducing equal pay which are suited to the circumstances of the particular industries and firms. This flexibility will be lost if an intermediate stage is laid down in the Bill as firm and mandatory. The major objection to prescribing a definite intermediate stage is that it would result in the tribunals and the Industrial Court having to shoulder an additional load of work concerned with the marginal question of whether an intermediate target had been achieved in a particular situation.
As drafted, the Bill provides that the Secretary of State can introduce an intermediate stage by Order if orderly progress is not being made towards equal treatment. This achieves the best of both worlds. The possibility of flexibility between industries and between firms is retained, whilst, at the same time, arbitrary progress across the whole field must be achieved. For these reasons we cannot accept my hon. Friend's Amendments.
Amendment No. 33 is our response to the undertaking which I gave in Committee—an undertaking without commitment. The Amendment applies only to rates of pay and not to all terms and conditions of employment. It would not have been feasible, for example, to provide for nine-tenths of a company car, and it would be unduly complicated to provide for nine-tenths of such matters as holiday entitlement. Women's rates at present average about 80 per cent. of men's rates, and raising the proportion to 90 per cent. seems to be a reasonable objective if any order is needed by the end of 1973. The Amendment provides for the possibility of a figure higher than 90 per cent. by the end of 1973.
I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the final words of Amendment No. 33:
 but the fraction specified by the Order may be greater than nine-tenths.

While my hon. Friend may be disappointed that we cannot accept her Amendments, I hope that she will derive satisfaction from the response which we have made in tabling an Amendment which gives effect to the Amendment which she tabled in Committee.

Mr. Dudley Smith: One of our most interesting discussions in Committee was on the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renee Short), when we heard various opinions on implementation. I am pleased to be in a position to support the Under-Secretary of State on this occasion, as he has been kind to us on Report.
We feel that flexibility is important in the implementation and time scale of the Bill. Circumstances vary enormously throughout industry, and no one pretends that equal pay will not be very expensive and inflationary. This is not to say that it is not the right thing. We support the Bill and we believe that equal pay must come, but it would be nonsense to say that it will not add substantially to costs and will not increase prices.
Many opinions have been expressed on when the Bill should be implemented and on whether there should be an interim stage. As I said in Committee, I think that the time scale of 1975 is about right. I know that the hon. Lady and some of her hon. Friends are anxious that it should be implemented sooner, and I appreciate her feelings. Certain sections of industry think that we are hurrying on too quickly in saying 1975. Sensible firms, once the Bill becomes law, will quickly begin to implement equal pay. Those who realise that they have to absorb the costs and make provision for the extra expense involved will start putting their houses in order. Those who do not will be in for a severe shock if they leave it to the eleventh hour. It is important to protect those who will be acting sensibly, and they will in the vast majority. If these things happen too quickly, some organisations will be ruined financially by the sudden application of these provisions.
Most of these provisions are permissible for the Minister, and I am sure that she and her successor will use them intelligently and will weigh the effect on both sides of industry. We support the


Under-Secretary of State's view and we are in favour of the time scale which has been laid down.

Mr. Booth: In the atmosphere of harmony, sweetness and light which has reigned in the Chamber tonight, I find it difficult to speak against my own Front Bench. But my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State's argument that flexibility is required is no answer to the Amendment which has been moved since the Amendment itself enables greater flexibility to be exercised by the Secretary of State in Clause 8 in dealing with equal pay.
Orderly progress towards equal pay will be as dependent on the way trade unions advance claims as on the way the Secretary of State uses her powers under the Clause. Some unions have already pressed successful claims for equal pay. My own union at Harland and Wolff succeeded in a complete equal pay claim for a particular grade of work. Other unions have not even made a start, and should be ashamed of themselves.
If the Secretary of State wants to use her powers under Clause 8 to achieve orderly progress, she must have maximum flexibility. But to achieve that the Government should at least be able to accept Amendment No. 31, so that where no progress at all has been made the Secretary of State may intervene at the most appropriate point between now and 31st December 1973. I hope that the Government will be prepared to think again on this matter.

Mr. Harold Walker: My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) must recognise that the Amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renee Short) hang together. Their effect is to make it mandatory for my right hon. Friend, whether she likes it or not, to introduce an Order in 1973 requiring a minimum of nine-tenths progress towards equal pay. That is not flexibility.

Mr. Booth: Why cannot Amendment No. 31 be taken and the other Amendments be dealt with separately?

Mr. Walker: There are, in addition, major defects of drafting which would make the Amendment unacceptable, but far from achieving the flexibility

which we are seeking the Amendment would have the reverse effect.
What we are saying in Clause 8 is that if it appears to the Secretary of State expedient to do so—and she will have to have regard to the circumstances and factors operating at that particular time—my right hon. Friend will have the power to make the nine-tenths requirement if circumstances permit it, or even more if it appears to her in the circumstances appropriate to do so. This gives the maximum flexibility and provides us with the best of both worlds.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. 33, in page 9, line 19 at end insert:
(3) Any order under subsection (2) above shall provide, in respect of rates of pay, that the rate to be paid to a person in accordance with the term referred to in section 1(2) or (3) above shall be not be less than nine-tenths of the rate paid to those with whom comparison is required by that term; but the fraction specified by the order may be greater than nine-tenths.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move Amendment No. 34, in page 9, line 23 at end add:
(4) Before laying before Parliament a draft of an order under subsection (2) above the Secretary of State shall consult such bodies appearing to him to represent the interests of employers or of employees as he considers appropriate.
I am happy to leave the Amendments in the same spirit as we began our proceedings on Report by making a concession in response to points made in Committee. The hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) asked us to enter into an obligation to have consultations before the Secretary of State makes the Order. That is the effect of this Amendment. I hope it will be felt that we have dealt adequately with the points made in Committee.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Again we welcome the hon Gentleman's attitude. This is probably the last word I shall say on the Bill, and I would stress that this Bill will be brought about by co-operation, under standing and consultation. The more that this can be achieved, the better will be the provisions of the Bill. We Welcome that attitude as embodied in the Amendment, and we believe that the Bill is improved by it.

Amendment agreed to.

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I think it entirely appropriate that we should have a short debate before we dispatch this historic Measure to another place for its final touches. Whilst it may be that we are not bidding a final farewell to the Bill, none the less I think that we have reached the end of the beginning.
In some ways the Bill is different, but, I think, a stronger and healthier creature than that which the House welcomed. almost universally, on 9th February. I think that the improvements reflect the constructive efforts, let me readily acknowledge, of both sides of the House and both sides of the Committee. Inevitably, at times sectional or political interests intruded in our discussions and perhaps divided us, but, on the whole, our work has been carried out in a general atmosphere of good will and often good humour. I pay tribute to those who have contributed to our efforts and to the accomplishment of our task.
As is often the case with Measures before the House, there have been those, often on the Government benches, who have felt that we were not going far enough nor fast enough with our timetable.

Mrs. Renee Short: Hear, hear.

Mr. Walker: But at the same time there have been some who would have preferred a less radical, slower moving set of proposals, and again, as is so often the case, this reinforces the view that we probably have the balance about right.
There have been those who have felt that the adoption of different definitions would have more effectively implemented the principle of equal pay, which is supported by most hon. Members. To those I must say that, far from seeking a half-hearted compromise, it is my belief that in legislative terms the Bill translates the principle of equal pay into action in a more soundly based far reaching and effective way than the legislation of any other country has attempted to

do, whilst properly and responsibly taking into account the economic consequences and the capacity of industry to absorb the effects of the Bill.
To those of my hon. Friends who have sought to bring forward the date of implementation, I emphasise what we have said so frequently—that there is no reason, where the circumstances permit the earlier introduction of equal pay, why the machinery of collective bargaining should not seek to anticipate 1975.
I said that we are at the end of the beginning. We shall not be at the end of the road until all women have the social, moral, and economic justice which, in so many areas of employment, is long overdue.
I share the view of the signatories of the Royal Commission's note of dissent —the Royal Commission on Equal Pay in 1946—that equal pay will not only redress the inequities in financial terms, but will also give women the wider opportunities of employment that have been too long denied them.
Certainly the Bill will not, and we all recognise cannot, remove all the problems. Many will remain. Indeed, some will arise from the legislation—problems of interpretation, enforcement, prejudice, convention, and the preservation of sex privileges—but these difficulties have been for too long an excuse for inaction.
I hope that the courage and determination shown by the Government, and in particular by my right hon. Friend, in bringing off this formidable legislative task, will find ready response from those on both sides of industry whose task it will be to make the legislation a reality both in fact and in spirit.

Mr. R. Carr: One of the features about the Bill is the number of Amendments which have been made to it in Committee. I should like to pay tribute particularly—and I am sure the right hon. Lady will understand this—to the Under-Secretary who has played a leading part in Committee and whose great care and courtesy and constructive response to Amendments were so much appreciated. He has contributed much to the good shape in which the Bill now stands. I hope that, in passing, I may take a little credit for my colleagues on the Opposition benches for the fact that we have


thought of, put forward and argued persuasively so many constructive Amendments. However, it is no good proposing them unless they are accepted.
I have one general criticism of the Bill which, to be fair, applies to other Bills. We think that it is a particular pity in this Bill, and it has to do with the incomprehensibility to the ordinary layman of so much of its language. All of us throughout the House really should resolve to try to learn how to legislate in a more intelligible manner. I had to say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General last night that sometimes the approach of lawyers makes me despair of the law. We must somehow persuade, and also help, parliamentary draftsmen to learn how to draft our Bills in plainer language. I am sure that we do not match up to other countries in this respect.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not attack people who cannot defend themselves. Both sides of the House are alone responsible for this Bill as it appears on Third Reading.

Mr. Carr: I accept that. Of course. I was not wishing to attack anyone and if, inadvertently, my words conveyed that, I am grateful to you for calling me to order. I certainly do not want to do that. The will to do this must start with us, with the instructions and the help which we are prepared to give. It is a great pity that this Bill has not been in plainer language and more intelligible to those whose lives it will affect.
My main point is that we welcome the Bill, we wish it well and would like to congratulate the right hon. Lady on presenting it, and now, on having almost got it through. Its main principle, the idea of a broad comparison between work, is right. Of course the theory of equal pay for work of equal value is unassailable in theory. There was a time when I felt that was right but I am sure that what we have in the Bill is right, because the difficulty of the equal value definition is to convert theory into practice. It is no good unless it can be converted into practice with reasonable accuracy and consistency. That would require a period of job evaluation and it would be a very long time before any real effect

could come about. What is said in the Bill about broad comparability is, on the whole, right. Similarly, we would agree that, on the whole, timing is about right too.
When we consider the effects of the Bill on women in employment we must realise that there are difficulties, but those probably will be overcome, and there are also dangers. We should realise those dangers. If we are to do what we want about women's employment in the years ahead we must recognise that we have to advance on two fronts, the front of equal pay and also the front of equal opportunity. This Bill advances only on the first front. While in some cases, of course, advancing on the front of equal pay may automatically involve advance on the front of equal opportunity, there are other cases where it may not. There are cases where advancing on one front only may be a positive danger.
I am referring to the danger of a ring fence round women's employment. That, traditionally, is one of the problems of women's employment. Certain jobs and industries have become almost marked out as women's employment. They become also low-paid employment. If by advancing, as the Bill does, only on the front of equal pay it were to have the effect of raising that ring fence and isolating more sharply special women's employment, where through lack of comparability the Bill would not bite, we might be putting back the opportunities for women rather than advancing them.
I say this not in any grudging sense. We should all realise that with the opportunities and good effects for women in employment there is also this danger, which we ought to bear in mind and which we think it is a pity that it has not been dealt with in the Bill.
I would of course be out of order to go further into that tonight. The main obstacle which women have to overcome, as I said on Second Reading, is the obstacle which arises from a combination of convention and male prejudice. I believe we shall find that we shall have to do more than legislate on equal pay before we overcome that combined obstacle.
Nevertheless, this Bill is an advance. We genuinely welcome it and wish it well.


We hope that it will lead to better opportunities for women in industry in the years to come.

9.27 p.m.

Mrs. Renee Short: This is an auspicious occasion. My right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary are to be congratulated on the fact that we have reached this stage and are now debating the Third Reading of the Bill.
I have served on several Standing Committees since I came into the House, but this was the most exciting for me. Obviously I am prejudiced because I am a woman. It was also one of the pleasantest Committees I have been on. Not only are my right hon. and hon. Friends Ito be congratulated, but the Opposition right hon. and hon. Members on the Committee also played a great part and it was a real pleasure to be with them on that Committee. I hope that all Bills which go through the House will have such a pleasant and amicable passage. That is something we might aim for, but probably will not achieve.
Millions of women will benefit from this Bill. I hope that the benefits they will get will not be delayed until 31st December, 1975, but, because of pressure from the unions, they will come earlier rather than later. The period in which we have had to wait for the Bill has been far too long. Had there been more militancy among women workers, had there been better organised unions and had the unions been more militant, we would have had the Bill long before this. However, we have it now and we should be glad about that. I hope it will have an effect on public opinion, on women's opportunities generally and on women's chances to get better educational opportunities and training opportunities in industry, and that there will be more appreciation of what women can bring to jobs, to professions and industry. If given the opportunity and responsibility, women can carry out jobs very effectively and well, often bringing more to a job than does a man because of a woman's particular characteristics.
There are important principles enshrined in the Bill which will have a valuable effect on women's opportunities and

women's employment. The Bill establishes the principle of equal pay for broadly similar work, not the principle enshrined in I.L.O. Resolution No. 100 which has been supported, but not implemented, by many countries. We have taken a broader definition. At the beginning I was not sure that I was with my right hon. Friend on this, because I thought that the I.L.O. definition was better, but my right hon. Friend has won me over. I think that the Bill's interpretation is broader and better, because it provides more leeway. We do not have to pinpoint the similarities job for job with a man's job. There is the possibility of certain dissimilarities existing but of its being agreed that overall the job is broadly similar in many of its characteristics and, therefore, that the woman qualifies for equal pay.
The second principle is that the woman's rate will disappear and, where the work is broadly similar, the woman will spring off from the lowest rung of the pay ladder on to the lowest man's rate. This valuable principle will mean that trade unions will no longer negotiate for a woman's rate in the collective agreements they make.
Yesterday my right hon. Friend conceded the further valuable principle that trade unions are to be consulted when job evaluation exercises are to be carried out. She is to have further discussions with the T.U.C. and, if she can reach agreement, this part of the Bill will be looked at in another place.
In Committee my right hon. Friend made another very important and valuable concession for which I am especially grateful—that additional woman members will be appointed from the employers' side and the employees' side to the tribunals dealing with problems of equal pay. I bless my right hon. Friend for this concession. Tribunals are male-dominated. They are worthy bodies doing a valuable job, but it is essential that when equal pay problems arise a woman should know that there are women on the tribunal helping to adjudicate on her case.
This concession means that trade unions will have a job to do. They will have to find suitable women shop stewards, suitable women union officials, suitable women members, whom they can put


forward to my right hon. Friend as panel members from whom she can appoint trade union representatives. This is a very important concession. My right hon. Friend is to embody it in the Regulations she will issue after the Bill becomes law. It has also been agreed to limit the arbitrary power of the tribunals. The Bill is better and stronger as a result of all the Amendments made.
The only part that I do not like is that laying down the date. I am much disappointed that we were not able to improve on this, and that it stands as it did on Second Reading—December, 1975. I still hope that when the Bill goes to another place it will be possible for an amendment to be made—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss Amendments on Third Reading.

Mrs. Short: I am just putting out hints to my noble Friends, Mr. Speaker. I hope that when they read these proceedings they will take note of it. There is a genuine difficulty owing to the introduction of the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill, the due date of which is April, 1972—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady did not understand what I said. We cannot amend the date on Third Reading.

Mrs. Short: Perhaps although we cannot amend the date we can note the difficulty that many women workers will be in. I do not want to get too far out of order, Mr. Speaker, because I do not want to cause you too much difficulty.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The difficulty is not mine; it is the hon. Lady's.

Mrs. Short: I do not feel in any difficulty, Mr. Speaker, but still—
I hope very much that because we have had a good deal of publicity about the Bill since it was introduced both trade unions and employers will concentrate on trying to beat the date in the Bill. It is a challenge to both sides of industry to get on with the job and see that equal pay is achieved before December, 1975. I hope that with good will on both sides of industry this will be done. Progress has already been made, and I hope that it will be speeded up.
This is a historic occasion, and 1 should like it to be possible to mark the passage of the Bill by some kind of celebration, because it deserves it. We have waited a long time. My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State deserve great credit for steering the Bill through. This is an important landmark in women's emancipation.
I welcome the Bill. I wish it well and hope that we shall achieve its object long before December, 1975.

9.38 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: On this very historic day I should like to add my congratulations to all those who have played such a notable part in putting the Bill on the Statute Book. I especially congratulate the right hon. Lady and the Under-Secretary of State, but more especially the right hon. Lady because I know that for a very long time she has had at the back of her mind the desire for an opportunity to make this great step forward in the cause of women's participation in the life of the country.
I am very sorry that I have not played any part in the passage of the Bill. As the House knows only too well, one cannot be on everything or do all the work or be associated with all the various aspects of parliamentary life that one would like. But the Bill is a remarkable achievement, and I am very proud of the part the Opposition have played in conjunction with the Government in promoting equal pay for equal work.
I want to refer to something my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) said about equal opportunity. I remember the campaign started during the war by the Women Power Committee and all the women M.P.s and others interested in the contribution of women to the war effort. I remember well that medical women in the Services obtained equal pay at once, which was only just and right. But it is rather odd —and this went through my mind when my right hon. Friend referred to equal pay—that today women and girls who want to join the medical profession have so much difficulty in finding places in the medical schools. This emphasises the fact that, although we have won this great battle today, much more work


remains to be done. Everyone associated with the Bill will want to see equal opportunity associated with equal pay.
I hope that the right hon. Lady will not mind my saying something in reply to the point raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renee Short) about a celebration. If I remember rightly, the Fawcett Society, which has played a great part over the years in supporting the principle of equal pay, has already invited the right hon. Lady to a celebration dinner and she has been graciously pleased to accept. We look forward to 20th July, which will be the great occasion.
On historic occasions like this one's mind goes back. During the war, in a Cabinet minute, Sir Winston Churchill —who was not, I regret to say, in favour of equal pay—asserted that in the build up of resistance movements women could play a very important part. He said that this was because in carrying out their work in the building up of resistance they could pass unnoticed more easily than men in the tasks they would have to carry out. We know that as a result during the war many women sacrificed their lives in an heroic way. Ever since those days there has been a great deal of support and action among both men and women in the country so that we should all, men and women together, be able to co-operate in trying to go forward to the greatest achievement that this country can attain—the promotion of happiness, prosperity, hard work and the build-up of freedom not only in our own country but throughout the world for which so much sacrifice was made.
Today is a very great occasion for me and for all those women who both now and in the past have taken part in achieving the final result which has been brought about by the present Government supported by the Opposition. I hope that what has now been achieved will help women as well as men in the country in the way we all want them to be helped. I express my enormous congratulations, and I am delighted to have been here on this auspicious occasion.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Lee: When I had been about three months in this House I was

certain that I knew how it would react to any given situation. After nearly 25 years in the House, one realises that one can never know how it will react until the event occurs. I have seen during that period issues which have crammed the Chamber to capacity and have provoked the greatest possible excitement. The newspapers have looked upon them as crises of one kind or other. Yet, within a few hours those events have been forgotten.
Here we have a momentous Bill which can transform the position of 8½ million women in industry and also the whole conception of how the nation looks upon the dignity of women. Yet the Bill has gone through practically without a ripple. The Press did not even deign to mention its Committee proceedings and it has, therefore, received a completely disproportionate national reaction. One sometimes wonders whether we get our priorities right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renee Short) said that one of the things to be applauded is that we shall see women getting the minimum rate for men. She is a great champion of women and i hope that she will set her sights rather higher than that. If I believed that that was all that was in the Bill, I should not be half as interested as I am. I believe that one of the developments industrially which will emerge from this Measure is that a great deal of the soul-destroying type of work which so many women have had to do will disappear. Let us be frank. Had it not been for their cheap labour, many of these jobs would long ago have been taken out of human effort and geared to automation and mechanisation. Much of such work will now probably be more speedily mechanised.
That being so, I believe that there will be nothing like the amount of that kind of work available—and thank God for it. But it does mean, surely, that, instead of seeing women workers in terms of being able to get the lower rate—in other words, the lowest rate paid to men—they will get the proper rate for the job. The nation would be squandering a great asset if 8 million women in industry were to be looked upon merely as glorified labourers, or whatever term we wish to use. There are stick-in-the-muds on both


sides of industry who think more of the prestige of their craft or skill and who will oppose what this Bill does. I would say to my colleagues in the trade union movement that, even looking at this from a protectionist angle, the coming of equal pay will end the danger of cheap labour taking over from them. Even from that narrow, selfish angle, the time has come for them to widen their scope.
I have disagreed with the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) about opportunity. I believe the Bill gives great opportunity if only people will interpret it generously and imaginatively. After this good job of work by the House, a great deal of responsibility devolves upon those in industry who will interpret it. On Second Reading I said that, in this period, the amount of work which could be done by unskilled labour would diminish rapidly. If I am right about that and right in believing that the shortages of skilled labour which we now have will become even more desperate as the economy expands, it is vital that the processes of training concomitant with the contents of the Bill should now go ahead far more rapidly than ever before.
I should like my colleagues in the trade union movement to take this opportunity to ensure that production of that type of thing which is attractive in the export markets can best be multiplied by getting more and more of our women trained for skilled work. I am not particular who disagrees with me about this: I shall go on advocating it, because the dignity of women is affronted so long as we look upon them as unskilled or semiskilled labour. Economically, it is an utter waste that one-third of our labour force should be treated in that way.
The hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, mentioned the need for celebration. To me, as a product of the trade union movement, it is astounding that they have not yet taken the Albert Hall for a huge demonstration attended by the leaders of the movement, and the Secretary of State, who deserves great credit for this—a national celebration of a momentous occasion.
The aim of the Trade Union and Labour Movement is not merely to ensure

improvement of a certain type or to look at the rather dull proposition of giving women merely the lowest rate given to men. It should be to bring a more joyous, healthy and happy life to all those who labour. My hon. Friend mentioned 1888, when the T.U.C. passed its first resolution, and the hon. Member for Tynemouth reminded us of the war. She will agree that, 25 years ago, far more women got equal pay than now, so not much progress has been made in the last quarter of a century.
The House has given a great lead, for which I hope the Trade Union Movement will be grateful, and which it will pick up. I hope that it will enter into the generous spirit which has pervaded these debates. If that happens, we will have done a great job of work, not only to the benefit of all the women workers in our community but also for the prosperity and future of this great nation.

9.52 p.m.

Sir Douglas Glover: The House accepts, I think, that the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) is not unskilled in choosing an opportunity for saying something he wants to say, but I have been waiting 18 years to say what I want to say now. The right hon. Lady the First Secretary and I were political opponents in 1945 and she swept me out of sight in a magnificent victory. The electorate were probably quite right: the right hon. Lady was a far more experienced politician then than 1 was. She has risen to great heights as a right hon. Lady and I am a poor, simple back bencher. As this is my last Parliament, I fear that that is the highest that I am likely to rise.
But I should like to say to the right hon. Lady that in the intervening years we have had a good many rows across the Floor of the House. I remember using the machinery of the House to talk out the Transport Bill and I have never seen anyone so white with fury as the right hon. Lady. That is the only time I have understood the phrase " white with fury ". But we gave the right hon. Lady her Bill the next day without debate.
We have had our controversies. But this is a great day in the House of Commons. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene


Ward) and the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) have probably done more for the cause of women than anyone else, though not just through this Bill on equal pay. There is one characterictic in both of them which I have always admired. Of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth was here long before I came to the House, but they have been the first two women Members who would have been insulted if they had been approached specially as women Members They were Members of Parliament, and their sex did not matter. They would have been insulted if one had withdrawn one's animosity or relaxed one's vituperation because they were women Members. They have done enormous good for the cause of women and women's equality.
This Bill is only a step on the road. When we talk about equal pay, we are talking, really, about equality between the sexes, though a good deal of the movement for equality between the sexes has come because of the approach to the question of equal pay.
The whole House welcomes the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) has made clear our welcome on this side. I was not a member of the Standing Committee, but I notice that the Bill went through Committee with a great measure of unanimity between both sides. One cannot help noting, however—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) commented on this—that we are debating tonight a historic occasion in the life of the nation and the arrangements between the sexes, yet the House is almost empty. It is an extraordinary feature of political controversy and the changing relationships within society that when the pie, as it were, is ready for eating there is no argument about taking it out of the oven. We are addressing ourselves to an open door today. The great feeling of the nation is that this ought to be done, and there is no party-political controversy about it. I shall not take the moment of glory from the right hon. Lady, but in the life of the nation now there is not much political controversy about it.
It is one of the glories of Britain that when these things happen and the mood is right, the fundamental agreement with

in society manifests itself. We sometimes forget—perhaps this is a good time to remind ourselves of it—that despite all the dreadful rows we have across the Floor, there is far more fundamental agreement on what sort of society we want and what we want to do in the country than there is division between the parties. If it were not so, we could not run our democracy.
I give the right hon. Lady full credit for having had the privilege to pilot the Bill through, and I pay tribute also to the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State. I should have said more about him had I not wanted to pay particular tribute to the right hon. Lady herself, for he also has done a great deal.
The Bill will receive wide respect and support in the nation, but I add one word not to the right hon. Lady or to any Member of Parliament but, so to speak, to people outside. There is still a difference of view in the country, and if men and women are to be equal, the Bill is only a step on the road. A good deal depends on the reaction of both sides.
There are a good many women, I think, who, given the opportunity, would for some strange reason vote against the Bill because of their attitude of mind. We have now provided the machinery. It is up to the women of this country to seize the opportunity and obtain the equality for which we have provided. I warmly welcome the Bill and congratulate the right hon. Lady on it. This is probably the last time that I shall say anything kind to her.

9.59 p.m.

Mr. William Wilson: I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) was right to chide the Press for a lack of publicity about the Bill. Nevertheless, while speaking of the wonderful occasion this is in the House and how historic the Bill is, we note the empty benches and wonder why we are not celebrating in a much forthright manner.
It is perhaps right that I, of all hon. Members, should pay my tribute to the Bill because it was in my constituency, nearly 1,000 years ago, that Lady Godiva undertook her famous ride. It is because of that that in Coventry, South we can


say that 1,000 years ago we recognised the importance and value of women, and therefore—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,

That the Proceedings on the Equal Pay (No. 2) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Hamling.]

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Speaker: I regret having had to interrupt the hon. Gentleman to put the Motion. I did not know that Lady Godiva was demonstrating for equal pay.

Mr. Wilson: Mr. Speaker, you would be amazed if you really knew what Lady Godiva is said to have been demonstrating about on that immortal ride.
Hon. Members have said time and again tonight what a wonderful occasion this is, and how remarkable the achievement that we are giving eight and a half million women equal pay. I want to pour a drop of cold water on the elation. I suggest that instead of being so elated and proud, we ought to be a little humble and concern ourselves with the thought that all that we are doing is remedying an injustice which has existed for far too long. For centuries women in this country have been in an inferior position. If we can take joy out of merely remedying an injustice which has gone on for far too long, the passing of this Measure is an occasion for joy, but I think that we ought to ask ourselves whether this injustice ought not to have been remedied a long time ago.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) said that he was never backward in finding an opportunity to say what he wanted to say. From time to time I have heard you, Mr. Speaker, saying that the House is a place where one must take one's opportunities when they come. I therefore take this opportunity, because I have not had an opportunity on any other occasion, to say a word about one group of women who, unfortunately, have not been referred to during the passage of the Bill, I refer to policewomen, in whom

I have a special interest which I now declare.
The Clause which deals with equal pay for policewomen was not discussed at all during the Second Reading. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) asked a number of questions about it, to which he received no answers, and in Committee there was no discussion at all on the Clause; it stood part of the Bill without comment. I am sure that it would be wholly out of order for me to deal in detail with the Clause point, but I do wish to say a few words.
Policewomen generally welcome the Bill But it is only fair to tell the right hon. Lady that they have not always felt this way. They felt differently for two reasons. First, there are some kinds of police work which women cannot do. They cannot deal with riots, as in Grosvenor Square. They cannot go out alone at night in rough areas after the public houses close.
On the other hand, as the right hon. Lady will recognise, there are some police jobs which women, and women alone, can do effectively. Only women can search women prisoners. Only women can do certain kinds of criminal investigation work, and women, I think, are best in dealing with children. Indeed, it was precisely because of the special needs of women and young persons that women police were first recruited, not because they were equal, not because they were the same, but precisely because they were unique and they were different. So their work is by no means equal; it is different. It is, however, work of equal value, and that is why on their behalf I welcome the Bill.
I want now to say a word about the practical application of the Bill because I hope the right hon. Lady will see that this is discussed in another place. In many police forces women work fewer hours; they work seven and half hours instead of eight hours as men do, and there are good reasons for this. Equally, they take longer time for refreshments, and there is a good reason for that, too. On numerous occasions when police women have discussed the principle of equal pay, they have concluded that they would rather continue with less pay on the condition that they could continue


to work fewer hours and have longer periods for refreshment. I understand their feelings very well. When it comes to implementing the Bill, it will therefore be necessary for the right hon. Lady or the Home Secretary to consider how precisely to increase the hours of work and decrease the length of time given for refreshments in return for police women having equal pay.
I am glad to say that there is a change of opinion in the police service on this matter, very largely because women increasingly are doing the same kinds of work as men.
The right hon. Lady has suggested that equal pay should be introduced in phases. There are two phases in which she could do this most practically for the police force. I suggest that she should move first in this year's pay review and make an increase, or ask her right hon. Friend to make an increase, in return for an equivalence in refreshments. The second phase might be done in 1972 in return perhaps for an increase in the working week. I do not think it will be difficult to apply the Bill to the police service, but 1 ask the right hon. Lady to consult her right hon. Friend the Home Secretary so that these matters are dealt with carefully and practically.
I have said what I wanted to say. I very much regret I have had to do so at the very end of the Bill instead of at the beginning or in Committee, but one has to deal with these points when one can.
I conclude by saying that I generally welcome the Bill. I am sure that it will help women, and help women in my constituency. As many hon. Members have said, we are passing an historic Bill. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman who wondered why the Albert Hall had not been hired so that the Bill might be celebrated in a fuller House than we have here, I would say that my impression is that women are practical people. They will judge the Bill when they get the practical rewards, and not before.

10.9 p.m.

Mrs. Castle: It is perhaps appropriate that a woman should have the last word on the Bill. In doing so, I want to thank very sincerely all those who have

made such encouraging and kindly speeches during Third Reading for the congratulations that they have expressed. I was particularly glad that the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) singled out my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who, as he rightly said, bore so effectively the heat and burden of the day in the detailed work in Committee.
We are all agreed that this has been a remarkable occasion in the sense that we had an exceptionally harmonious Committee stage. There has been no blood and thunder, no great clashes, no filibustering, just constructive points, many of which we have met. This shows how successful a Committee stage can be when we cut out the political blood and thunder and really get down to constructive points. By doing so we can cover a lot of ground in a remarkably short time.
This is an historic moment, which starts now. The timetable of the Bill is 1975, but it is already beginning to have a marked effect. Unions are giving equal pay much higher priority in their negotiations. I am delighted that the unions have a new hobby; they take pride in " beating Barbara's deadline ". Good luck to them if they can do it as part of constructive wage negotiations.
The T.U.C. has taken up my hint and decided to set up an advisory service to help women to take full advantage of the Bill and, as it said, " to get equal pay without tears." The T.U.C. has realised that the effectiveness of the law will depend on the attitudes of both men and women and, not least, of the women themselves. How can women expect equal rights when only about a quarter of the working women belong to trade unions? I agree with Mrs. Marie Patterson who said in her speech today at the Women's Conference of the T.U.C. that equal pay for work of equal value can be achieved only through strong trade unionism. I hope this message will go out to the women of this country tonight.
My Department will back up the effort of the T.U.C. in getting the facts about the Bill across to the people, and particularly to those who will be most concerned. The National Labour Women's Advisory Committee asked me some time


ago if we could issue circulars to employers and unions giving them a layman's guide to the Bill. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mitcham that there are parts of the Bill which are not particularly easy for a lay reader to understand. It is, therefore, our intention when the Bill reaches the Statute Book to prepare detailed comments of guidance on it for use of employers and employees. These will explain in detail the meaning and purpose of each part of the Bill.
I am sure that this guide will be necessary because I still hear people who have studied the Bill making misleading statements about it, such as to the effect that it provides only for equal pay for the same work or broadly similar work, whereas, of course, it does far more. This is why it is important to have this detailed analysis. These notes of guidance will be free, and we intend to send copies to all trade unions and employees on the register.; of the Department's local offices. Copies will be available at my Department's local offices throughout the country so that there will be no excuse for anybody to misunderstand the Bill.
My final word is this. The Bill is, of course, not the last word in the fight for equality, but I believe that it was the most difficult hurdle to overcome for the simple reason that it involves money. The Government have many things they want to do and there are a number of competing causes on which they want to spend money. It is difficult to choose the priorities. The historic thing today is that at a time still of economic stringency we have chosen to give priority to the principle of nondiscrimination against women in rates of pay. I am sure that this is a priority which the country will endorse as being the fulfillment of a long-overdue piece of justice.
The Bill is not, as some people believe, concerned only with rates of pay and I should like to put this clearly on the record. It is concerned with something far more far-reaching. It is concerned with terms and conditions of employment. Anything provided for men must be provided for women doing the same or

equally evaluated work whether it be in the form of wages or any kind of emolument.
It is necessary to get this on record, because I have before me the agenda of the Women's Conference of the T.U.C. which is being held today and tomorrow. I was astonished to see a resolution in the name of the National Union of General and Municipal Workers calling on the Government to amend the present equal pay proposals in order to adopt a wider definition of remuneration. It goes on to say:
 To include"—
and it quotes the I.L.O. Convention Number 100:
 the ordinary basic or minimum wage or salary and any additional emoluments whatsoever payable directly or indirectly whether in cash or in kind by employers to workers and arising out of the workers' employment.
They are asking us to amend the legislation to include the I.L.O. definition of remuneration. There is no need. It is already in the Bill. It is this kind of misunderstanding about the scope of the Bill that it is imperative we clear up.
Some have said—and I agree with what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) —that this will be an opportunity for training, but the Bill will not give women the opportunity unless they are given equality in both training and promotion. This is exactly what the Bill does. I want again to put on record that if the man's contract of employment contains anything about promotion or training, then so must the contract of any of the women entitled to equal treatment with the men. Therefore, the scope for the Bill is more far-reaching than many people have yet realised.
As we celebrate the passing of this stage tonight we can say that we have started something which will have a profound and far-reaching effect on society. I wish to thank every hon. Member of the House who has helped us to put this great Measure on the Statute Book.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

CATTERICK ACCIDENT AFTER CARE CENTRE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hamling.]

10.18 p.m.

Mr. Timothy Kitson: I welcome an opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the subject of the road accident after-care scheme in the North Riding. In 1966 some 8,000 people died as a result of road accidents, 2,000 of them at the site of the accident and 2,000 of them between the site and arriving at a hospital.
In 1967 it was suggested by a general practitioner that a scheme might be introduced to deal with road accidents in the North Riding of Yorkshire, and a meeting was called of local general practitioners, police, ambulance, fire services, local authorities and hospitals. A steering committee was set up to sort out problems involved in road accidents and discuss better communications and the introduction of better equipment. The scheme was registered as a charity. It went into operation in December, 1967.
The area covered by the scheme stretching from Barnard Castle, Darlington and Hawes down to Boroughbridge and Thirsk and covering 1,500 square miles. The Al and the A66 run through the centre of the area, and those participating in the scheme are the services which I have mentioned.
The section of the Al covered by the scheme is extremely dangerous. There are 170 miles of motorway from London to Doncaster to the South, there is a motorway running from Darlington to Newcastle to the North, and many travellers treat this section of the Al as a motorway.
During the last 18 months, 450 accidents of a variety of types have been dealt with by 34 general practitioners who are now involved in the scheme.
It is a unique scheme in which people are greatly interested. The enthusiasm from local authorities and local people has been tremendous. Within two years £6,000 has been raised to improve the equipment carried not only by the general practitioners involved in the

scheme, but also by the police and ambulances.
Police cars now carry, in addition to the usual equipment, spinal boards, large dressings, positive-pressure breathing apparatus and " airways " to clear the air passage.
The medical office of health has equipped the ambulances with inflatable splints, which are easily stored, rapidly applied, and comfortable in use, large dressings made by boys from a school for the disabled, spinal boards, and other equipment.
The doctor going to an accident has a large " Doctor " sign on top of his motor car which flashes like a normal police car. He also carries a camera to take pictures, where possible, of accidents, as the scheme is trying to build up records of the seriousness of accidents on this section of the road.
The accident service is co-ordinated from police headquarters. Some general practitioners' cars are fitted with two-way radios on the ambulance service wavelength so that they can be reached rapidly. On average, during the last 15 months, a doctor has been on the scene of an accident in 9·7 minutes, whilst the ambulance, which usually has a longer distance to travel, has taken about 16 minutes.
What is so gratifying about the scheme is the enthusiasm of doctors, surgeons, police, ambulance, fire brigades and local authorities who have all worked together to make the scheme a success. On the success of this scheme, new schemes are being started in Beverley, Hull and Oxfordshire. Many people from all over the country last winter attended a symposium which was held at Scotch Corner in which many local authorities took a great deal of interest.
I ought to clear up one matter. Last week, when I was discussing this matter, a report in the Press stated that a constituent of mine had been certified dead by ambulance men attending the scene of an accident. This was incorrect. My constituent had been thought to be dead and had been covered by a blanket, but when the doctor and ambulance service arrived they started to work on him and he was taken to hospital. He is now back at work, completely recovered. I should like to say how sorry I am for any embarrassment that may have been


caused to the ambulance service over a misunderstanding arising from a conversation which I had with a Lobby correspondent.
I should like to see co-ordination between the Ministry of Health, the Home Office and the Ministry of Transport. We know that this scheme is a success, and we are very disappointed by the report which was prepared for the Department of Health by Dr. Peter Parish. This report, quite frankly, was an insult to all those working in this scheme.
I consider that the statistics he used were very unfair to evaluate the usefulness of the scheme. Up to now there has been no access to hospital records and it has been difficult for G.P.s to use a standard pro forma form for completion on accidents. How can the success of the scheme be properly evaluated until a proper record is kept of all the cases treated by the road accident after-care scheme?
A clinical research committee consisting of hospital consultants and general practitioners was formed in January, 1969, and a pro forma was designed for completion by the police, G.P.s and hospital staff. All ambulance, police and fire records are filed at the respective headquarters but so far no overall coordination of these findings has been carried out. Surely, if time in hospital can be saved and disability in later life reduced, this scheme is working and saving the nation money.
This is one of the main objects of the scheme and we believe that with the experience and the improvement in dealing with the injured at the scene of the accident, time must, and will, be saved in hospital.
I mentioned the support of the local authorities and I should like to mention two letters which I have received. One from the Richmond Rural District Council states:
 This Council has been associated with the Road Accident After-care Scheme from its inception … the Council was an early financial contributor and has undertaken work for the Committee which has had the scheme in hand. The trunk roads Al and A66 pass through this district and are well known for the volume of traffic which they carry. The other highways serving the district are also very busy with industrial, commercial, residential and tourist traffic.

The Council has been most surprised to read … that the Ministry of Health has said that no money can be given yet from the national purse for this scheme. The Council knows that you are to raise this question in the House of Commons and the members have asked me to let you know that it will support everything you can do to ensure that national funds are made available for the Road Accident After-care Scheme.
The doctors and all others who have participated in the scheme to date should be commended by the Government's acceptance of responsibilities and contributing the money needed to keep the scheme running.
This Council and others who live astride trunk roads could easily say that those persons who use the trunk roads from the North, South, East and West of England are not their responsibility when it comes to an accident. We feel that the attention of the Government might be drawn to the parable of the Good Samaritan.
There is a very similar letter from the Northallerton Rural District Council expressing the hope that the Government will feel in some way able to support the scheme. Having seen it in operation I seriously believe that general practitioners must be recognised as an accepted part of the rescue team. The World Health Organisation reports over many years have advocated the importance of medical attention at the scenes of road accidents and this scheme is meeting these requirements.
The fact is that the Ministry does not accept the necessity of a doctor going to the scene of the accident as an item of service. There is no responsibility to the patient until he is admitted to hospital. I feel that this should be altered. This pilot scheme is, I believe, the forerunner of something that in years to come will be accepted by the nation as essential. I should like to hear the Minister encourage those working in this area for the splendid effort which they have made to date and I should like to see his Department coordinating discussions with other Ministries to see what assistance can be given to them in the years ahead.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) for bringing this development in saving life and human suffering to the attention of the House and to congratulate all those whose vision, energy and faith have brought it into being. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will be able to see his way to encouraging and


supporting this pilot scheme and, in cooperation with his appropriate colleagues, at least ensure that some proper follow-up of the findings takes place, with a more complete evaluation.
I feel that it is this type of individual initial inspiration, with its enthusiastic co-operative effort, which starts off what so often becomes a vital part of our services, particularly with the emphasis on prevention.
I hope that the Minister will not be deterred by any small extra cost which might be involved in the short term, because this is a question of saving not only life, but hospital time, scarce resources, skill, and equipment, and therefore, ultimately, money.

10.30 p.m.

Dr. Reginald Bennett: As one who lived for 10 years or more in the North Riding, I am struck with admiration for the enterprise and thoughtfulness of these people who have got together to render a public service which notably fills a gap which has not so far been tackled and met elsewhere in the country. I add my words, few as they are, to the words of my hon. Friends in hoping that the Government will be able to approve and support this unusual endeavour.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Dr. John Dunwoody): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) for raising the subject of the Catterick Accident After-Care Centre tonight. This represents a degree of co-operation between the different services involved that is thoroughly commendable: and everyone must be completely in sympathy with the aims of the road accident after-care scheme in the Richmond-Catterick area of the North Riding of Yorkshire. There is, of course, no argument about the need to save life and to aid those injured in road accidents as quickly as possible, and I congratulate Dr. Easton and his colleagues, medical and otherwise, for giving so much time, entirely voluntarily, to a scheme covering a considerable length of the Al and A6 routes, and for the euthusiasm and humanity of their enterprise. I say this not only from the point of view of

my Department, but of having had some experience in dealing with this problem on the main roads in a tourist area during the tourist season.
I might add that, prima facie, this is a most promising project and that I welcome the initiative of those concerned in endeavouring to demonstrate its value. One does not, of course, want to exaggerate what a scheme of this kind can hope to achieve. It would be unfair to expect very dramatic results. Doctors and ambulance men and indeed all the others involved cannot save the lives of people who are already dead when they reach the scene, or who suffer from irreversible conditions. The evidence from the Road Research Laboratory of the Ministry of Transport and from a report published in 1969 by Dr. G. N. Mackay seems to show that in nearly half the road fatalities of persons aged 16 or more dying within 12 hours, death occurs within 5 minutes, and just over half the deaths occur in 10 minutes. In rural areas the average time taken for an ambulance to get to the scene is 10–20 minutes. The Road Research Laboratory has estimated that, if the interval between the alarm and the arrival of an ambulance were reduced from 10–20 minutes to 5–10 minutes, it might improve the chance of survival of about 3 per cent. of all cases dying within 12 hours. This means, inevitably, that the scope for anyone trained in modern resuscitation techniques—whether they are police, ambulance men or doctors—to reduce the death rate much below the present level is bound to be somewhat limited. Nevertheless, 3 per cent. of all fatalities is just over 200 lives a year in this country, and any measures that can reduce this figure, or reduce the likelihood of permanent injury, warrant our most earnest and serious consideration.
In our Department we are considering the whole question of accident after-care at present. In doing so we have to consider a number of factors—more especially the saving of life, the reduction of morbidity, and the optimum use of our resources. In the case of resources, we have, for example, to balance the use of scarce medical manpower against the possibility of reducing the amount of time that patients need spend in hospital.
I hope that the North Riding scheme will provide a valuable and significant


contribution towards our ability to improve accident after-care. We are getting a good deal of information already; and I hope that it may be possible to devise means for measuring the results more precisely.
The shortcomings in the data at present are perhaps an inevitable result of a situation where it was felt that the need was first and foremost to begin to look after people rather than to wait until the procedures for recording and analysing the results were fully organised, and it is not my intention to suggest that this is any discredit to sponsors of the North Riding scheme.
Indeed, the organisers of the scheme appreciated the need to produce demonstrable results and went to a great deal of trouble to devise special forms for use in evaluating the arrangements and to discover how far prompt attention on the spot did help towards the survival and health of those injured in accidents. My Department hoped to use the results, and instituted an examination of the scheme as a whole, with a special look at the records of those hospitals in the area covered by the scheme to which road casualties had been taken for treatment. The period examined was the year from 1st April, 1968, to 31st March, 1969.
This searching analysis was undertaken by a general practitioner who is currently a member of a university research department. Unfortunately, however, it turned out that there had been some misunderstandings between the hospital staff and the others connected with the scheme, with the result that the special forms were either not used at all or often not properly completed. Records entered up by the other services involved were found to be inadequate in certain respects. The unfortunate result was that the admirable intentions of the organisers as regards recording the outcome of the cases dealt with were largely frustrated. This made for some difficulties in seeking the hard facts. However, despite this handicap, some sort of picture of the year's activities was built up from the records of all the services involved.
Naturally, in piecing together information in this way there was scope for error, but it is believed that the following main findings are substantially cor

rect. During the period there were 269 road accidents involving 388 victims, who were attended by one or more of the services in the scheme. Twenty people died at the scene of the accident. This involved a total of 17 accidents; the police attended all of these accidents; the ambulance service 13, the fire brigade 3, and general practitioners 11. There were no deaths in transit to hospital. Four victims died in hospital. Sixteen of the 20 victims who died at the scene of the accident were dead on the arrival of the general practitioner.
Two hundred and seventy-six road accident victims were taken to hospital. One hundred and two were treated in hospital but not detained. One hundred and seventy others were detained in hospital, but 118 of these stayed for one week or less. Twenty-eight general practitioners were involved in attending 155 road casualties during the year. One of them attended at 28 accidents, and six doctors attended between 5 and 10 accidents. Most of the remaining 21 doctors attended one or two accidents. Well over half the total number of accident cases was handled by ambulance personnel without the assistance of an attending general practitioner.
We have tried to draw some tentative conclusions from this analysis. I agree that it is remarkable that compared with a national figure of 25 per cent. of all road deaths in 1966 occurring in transit to hospital, none of the 24 North Riding fatalities in the period analysed died on the way to hospital; but the figures are too small to be absolutely statistically significant. I also agree that there were only four deaths in hospital of patients treated under the scheme.
However the picture is, as I said, not complete, and it is perhaps partly because of this that there are less encouraging aspects to the picture. For example, the ratio of deaths before and after reaching hospital—that is, 84 per cent. to 16 per cent. of the 24 deaths—is disappointingly similar to the results of an analysis of all road traffic accident deaths in the United Kingdom for the months of December, 1966, and December, 1967, when 82 per cent. of all deaths in persons aged 16 years or more dying within 12 hours of the accident died within 100 minutes of it.
For this reason, it is, as I said in reply to the hon. Member's Question on 13th April, impossible to analyse exactly the effect of the North Riding scheme on mortality or length of stay in hospital. Because the evidence is imperfect, I think that it would be wrong to take the data from this scheme as grounds for general advice on accident after-care, especially as this would anticipate a wide-ranging study of the subject which my Department has in hand at present. This study will naturally take account of the evidence from the North Riding scheme, and consider comparable schemes on the Continent as well.
At the present time a consulting casualty surgeon from Leeds in the N.H.S. and one of my medical officers are visiting six European countries to study their accident and resuscitation services. These countries are Holland, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Austria and France. Their study includes the training of medical and para-medical personnel and the lay public in modern first aid, including the support of vital functions by clearance and maintenance of the airway, prevention of respiratory circultory failures, and arrest of haemorrhage; ambulance design and equipment; the autobahn accident care unit at Heidelberg; the use of electronic monitoring techniques at sites of accidents; direct links back to chief clinicians in hospital; and the organisation of casualty service in hospital. I shall be considering their report, as soon as it is available, in conjunction with the information on the North Yorkshire scheme.
I will, of course, study with great interest any further evidence the hon. Member or the organisers care to send me, and if in the course of this examination it seems necessary and feasible to have further statistical or other information on the North Yorkshire scheme or on any of the arrangements in other countries, we shall consider with those concerned how best to obtain this. I

cannot, of course, anticipate what our conclusions may be, but my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and I regard it as very important to take all reasonable steps to save life and prevent the permanent injury of those involved in road accidents.
Meanwhile, although it is doubtful whether the interval between notification of an accident and the arrival of one of the after-care services at the scene could be significantly reduced, it seems that the police are usually the first to arrive on the scene and that with proper training they can play an important part in the emergency treatment of accident victims. It is also important that ambulance staff should be properly trained to give life-saving first aid to the seriously injured. Action has already been taken, and will continue, to improve their training, particularly the provision at nine ambulance training schools of two- and six-week courses on lines suggested by the Report of the Working Party on Ambulance Training and Equipment. Eight thousand ambulance men have now been trained on these courses. The training of ambulance staff is a matter kept under review by the Ambulance Service Advisory Committee set up by the Health Ministers.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this question. He has provided a useful opportunity to discuss what is being done, and I hope that my reply will have shown how we are deeply concerned with the problem of accident after-care. We are very conscious of what has been done and of the efforts of people in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. We in the Department, being concerned with the problem of accident after-care, are taking positive steps towards dealing with it.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.